Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: > If there's a performance advantage then we could add a configure test > and define the macro to call hypot(). You said it existed before C99 > though, how widespread was it? If it's in all the platforms we support > it might be reasonable to just go with it.
For one data point, I see hypot() in HPUX 10.20, released circa 1996. I suspect we would want a configure test and a substitute function anyway. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the substitute being the naive sqrt(x*x+y*y), particularly if it's replacing existing code that overflows in the same places. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers