Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
>> In Plauger's _The Standard C Library_ (1992) on p 335 is an excerpt
>> from the standard (I think). At the end of a section entitled
>> "7.10.1.4 The strtod function" is the following: "If the correct
>> value would cause underflow, zero is returned and the value of the
>> macro ERANGE is stored in errno."
>
> The Single Unix Spec also makes it clear that ERANGE on underflow is not
> optional:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/strtod.html
>
> I think there is no question that OpenBSD is broken. The question for
> us is whether we should expend effort to work around that. We already
> have a "small-is-zero" workaround comparison file in the main regression
> tests, so my thought is that ecpg should probably do likewise ...
The openbsd guys are already aware of the issue and working on a solution:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-tech&m=115756205505000&w=2
Stefan
