Hi Paul,
> but won't the "return 0.0" cause some compilers to
> issue bogus warnings about X and EXPONENT not being used?
> That's why I had the "x + exponent" in there.
We have a macro for this purpose in gnulib (actually, even two): _GL_UNUSED
and _UNUSED_PARAMETER_. Alternatively, a cast to vo
> - static double ldexp (double x, int exponent) { return x + exponent; }
> + /* A dummy definition that will never be invoked. */
> + static double ldexp (double x, int exponent) { abort (); return 0.0; }
The comment and "abort" are fine of course,
but won't the "return 0.0" cause some compilers
Hi Paul,
Paul Eggert wrote:
> + #define ldexp dummy_ldexp
> + static double ldexp (double x, int exponent) { return x + exponent; }
This code looks fishy to someone who may not understand the intent of this
definition. How about making it clearer, like this?
--- lib/strtod.c.orig Mon Jul 12 2
Paul Eggert wrote:
> +# FIXME: This implementation is a copy of printf-frexp.m4 and should be
> shared.
Indeed, it's bad for maintenance to have several macros which set the same
autoconf cache variable, as they can easily evolve differently. I'm fixing
these 4 occurrences:
2010-07-12 Bruno Ha
rtod_l) so all this work is
for somebody else. Ah well
>From 76ca2dc4900fc8b0aa37d38e5a19fa2242f3a3c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul R. Eggert
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:14:10 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] strtod: make it more-accurate typically, and don't require libm
* lib/strtod.
