Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 11:49 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >>BTW, does anybody know why we are not using the system strtod() when >>available? That seems the way to the quickest solution on most >>platforms. It seems to work with some simple tests for me. But I notice >>that there is no strtod_r(), just strtod(). But I couldn't find a >>definitive answer on whether or not the standard strtod() is guaranteed >>to be thread-safe or not. Does anybody know (where to find this >>information)? > > > OK found that out myself. Apparently some strtod implementations are > indeed not thread-safe by default (but most seem to be). The other > problem is that strtod depends on the locale and changing the locale > isn't thread-safe... sigh. So we do need our own implementation, or do > something like glib g_ascii_strtod() and convert the string > representation first to the current locale form (eeeewwww). >
In addition, many strotod implementations I encountered are subtly different when it comes to having the results that the Java specs demand for very small values. I guess that has a lot to do with floating point rounding modes being largely implementation dependant in C89 [1], so when porting to a C89-ish strtod one can only hope that the libc in question has been compiled with the right options/switches/assembly. :/ cheers, dalibor topic [1] that's one of the reasons why I prefer C99 over C89, personally. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
