Subject: Re: lib/17630: atof(3) lacks of some precision
To: None <>
From: Eric Jacoboni <>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 07/18/2002 13:41:08
>>>>> "David" == David Laight <> writes:

David> Well IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 says:
David>     "The call atof(str) shall be equivalent to:

David>     strtod(str,(char **)NULL),

David>     except that the handling of errors may differ. If the value
David>     cannot be represented, the behavior is undefined."

David> It also adds:

David>     "The atof() function is subsumed by strtod() but is retained
David>     because it is used extensively in existing code.  If the number is
David>     not known to be in range, strtod() should be used because atof()
David>     is not required to perform any error checking."

Well, you have the last word: i haven't the definitive Standard,
just the last free draft. It seems things have been refined between
these two documents. I better have to spare some Euros to buy it.

David> You could have nore fun deciding whether strtod() conforms to
David> IEEE 1003.1-2001 - and then fixing it.

No, thanks, sun is too hot outside...

Éric Jacoboni, né il y a 1330436044 secondes