[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] strtod: make it more-accurate typically, and don't require l
|
From: |
Paul Eggert |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] strtod: make it more-accurate typically, and don't require libm |
|
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:22:39 -0700 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5 |
> - 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 to
issue bogus warnings about X and EXPONENT not being used?
That's why I had the "x + exponent" in there.