Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> So what about strtof? That's gotta be dead code too. I gather we
> still need commit 72880ac1's HAVE_BUGGY_STRTOF. From a cursory glance
> at MinGW's implementation, it still has the complained-about
> behaviour, if I've understood the complaint, and if I'm looking at the
> right C runtime[1].
Looks plausible from here.
regards, tom lane