Hi Ingo, On Mon, Dec 10 2018 at 01:58:56 AM, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: [...] > My first impulse was to say "presumably, at some time in the (possibly > remote) past, systems existed where libm provided a viable implementation > of hypot(), but <math.h> failed to declare it. Your propsed direction > might break compilation on such systems, whatever they are." > > But repo archeology gives me the impression that's probably not > what actually happened. In groff 1.10 (1995), pic.h uncoditionally > contained a declaration of hypot(). Then starting from 1.14 (1999), > that declaration was wrapped in #ifndef MATH_H_DECLARES_HYPOT, > controlled by a test in ./configure. > > So presumably what happened is the reverse: the test was likely added > not because systems showed up lacking the dclaration in <math.h>, > but rather because the clash of the local declaration with <math.h> > started to cause trouble on some systems. We don't seem to have > any evidence that systems without MATH_H_DECLARES_HYPOT ever existed. > > For that reason, i agree with your plan to use neither > GROFF_NEED_DECLARATION([hypot]) nor the gnulib hypot module, > effectively implying that we will never define NEED_DECLARATION_HYPOT, > and also implying that we strictly rely on the hypot() prototype > being present in <math.h>.
I've commited the removal of the usage of gnulib's hypot module, Regards, Bertrand
