On 24.11.25 00:03, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 4:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
>>> That'd leave only Cygwin with HAVE BUGGY_STRTOF. Perhaps they have
>>> fixed their implementation[1]? Here's an experimental patch to drop
>>> all remnants, which could be used to find out. No Windows/Cygwin
>>> here. Hmm, what if we just commit it anyway? If their strtof() is
>>> still broken and someone out there is running the tests and sees this
>>> test fail, why shouldn't they take that up with libc at this stage?
>>
>> Hmm, we could get rid of the whole resultmap mechanism ...
>
> Yeah. I thought I'd see what blowback my
> if-Cygwin-strtof()-really-is-still-broken-they-should-fix-it argument
> attracted before spending the time to nuke all those lines too.
> Here's that patch. We could always revert resultmap we found a new
> reason to need it, but I hope we wouldn't.
These patches look sensible to me.
Maybe wait a bit to see if Andrew can manually reproduce the issue one
way or the other on Cygwin.
Otherwise, I'd say go for it.
