Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.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
