X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200303161536.QAA01921@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: strto{d,f,ld}, inf and nan patch
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:36:52 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Richard said:
> Maybe you could duplicate, say, t-strtof and change "float" to "long double",
> strtof to strtold. That might not be much work...

I could, but don't hold your breath. Volunteers?

> Also, we seem to understand nan(<anything>), but ignore it.

Indeed. I don't really mean to implement it. Somebody else will need
to do that.

Perhaps we should only accept "nan()" until somebody does implement
it.

> > +       /* If we are going to support "nan(0x1234) for setting specific bits,
> > +        * that code goes here. Something like "bits = strtoul( &s[4], &end_p,
> > +        * 0);".
> > +        */

> Maybe you should mark this (and similar) comments with a TODO or
> FIXME? FIXME seems to be the preferred to-do marker in the sources.

Well. The support of what is within the parentheses are up to the
implementation. So there's nothing wrong with it (nothing to FIX) as
it is today. But I suppose a "FIXME, any hackers with twiching fingers
out there? We would like to:" or something might be a good idea.

Whatever we decide to support should probably go into the
documentation.

> Maybe we could add a portability note
> saying that support for Inf, NaN, NaN() is C99-specific?

Errmh... How would such a portability note look like? (I though those
were c99, !c89 etc.)


Right,

						MartinS