Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3DFF44B4.FDBE57A2@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:37:24 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: strtof (C99) [PATCH]
References:	<200212171342 DOT OAA29462 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> > Please find below a patch to add strtof. The code is based on strtod.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> But is there any reason not to call strtod() followed by two
> comparisions for overflow detection (or four, underflow too) and
> returning that?
[snip]

No particular reason. I did think about that.

The behaviour of the functions will change, when we do some C99 updates. For
instance, strtof is supposed to return HUGE_VALF (a float version of HUGE_VAL)
instead of HUGE_VAL, like it's coded right now. strtold is supposed to do
something similar, returning HUGE_VALL.

So it's possible that C99 will not allow us to do what you suggest. But if it
does, then we can do that, when we're making the strto* functions
C99-compliant.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -