Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3E75A26E.18FCF9E5@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:24:46 +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: strto{d,f,ld}, inf and nan patch
References: <200303161536 DOT QAA01921 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Stromberg wrote:
[snip]
> Richard said:
[snip]
> > 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.

What I was trying to point out is that saying that we understand
nan(<anything>) in What's Changed might give the impression that we will do
something with <anything>. Maybe a note could be added to the strto* pages
about inf*, nan*? This could include a statement about <anything> being
ignored.

I think ignoring the <anything> in nan(<anything>) is fine.

> > > +       /* 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.

Yes.

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

Yes.

> > 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.)

@port-note <standard> <comments>

find src/libc -name '*.txh' | xargs grep port-note

Take a look at src/libc/ansi/stdio/scanf.txh. That has a C99-specific
portability note.

Bye, Rich =]

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