Subject: Re: lib/17630: atof(3) lacks of some precision
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Eric Jacoboni <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/18/2002 13:41:08
>>>>> "David" == David Laight <email@example.com> 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