Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage

Hi,

On 2022-08-07 11:47:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> So what about strtof?  That's gotta be dead code too.  I gather we
> still need commit 72880ac1's HAVE_BUGGY_STRTOF.

> From a cursory glance at MinGW's implementation, it still has the
> complained-about behaviour, if I've understood the complaint, and if I'm
> looking at the right C runtime[1].

Well, right now we don't refuse to build against the "wrong" runtimes, so it's
hard to say whether you're looking at the right runtime. I don't think we need
this if we're (as we should imo) only using the ucrt - that's microsoft's,
which IIUC is ok?


> -/*
> - * strtof() is part of C99; this version is only for the benefit of obsolete
> - * platforms. As such, it is known to return incorrect values for edge cases,
> - * which have to be allowed for in variant files for regression test results
> - * for any such platform.
> - */

We can't remove the result files referenced here yet, due to the double
rounding behaviour?

Greetings,

Andres Freund