| From: | Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: rint() replacement |
| Date: | 2003-05-10 11:53:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20030510115310.GA27755@ping.be |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 12:29:27AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>
> I do have a bit of a problem with the CVS-tip version of this code: it
> falls back to implementing rint() in terms of modf(). I would like to
> know the justification for assuming that modf() is more portable than
> rint().
modf() is part of C89 and POSIX, just as floor(). I have modf()
here, I do not have rint().
rint() was a BSD thing and is now part of C99.
Kurt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Siegel | 2003-05-10 15:25:16 | realtime data inserts |
| Previous Message | Brian | 2003-05-10 11:49:45 | Re: 7.4 features list |