Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage
Date: 2022-08-06 23:55:25
Message-ID: 152683.1659830125@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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].

Looks plausible from here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-08-07 00:05:14 Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-08-06 23:52:28 Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage