[Python-Dev] HAVE_HYPOT still needed?

[Tim Peters]

> If so we could remove the whole hypot() stuff...

Maybe not!  I don't have a copy of the C89 std here, and web searches turn
up conflicting claims.  My favorite C89 web site:

    http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/

does not list hypot among the C89 functions.  It's definitely required in
C99.  To play it safe, I expect we need to keep our own hypot after all.

Would still be nice to simplify this Mac-ish part of pyport.h:

#ifndef HAVE_HYPOT
extern double hypot(double, double);
#ifdef MWERKS_BEFORE_PRO4
#define hypot we_dont_want_faulty_hypot_decl
#endif
#endif

#ifndef HAVE_HYPOT
#ifdef __MWERKS__
#undef hypot
#endif
#endif

While we're at it, shame Barry into cleaning this up <wink>:

#ifdef __NeXT__
#ifdef __sparc__
/*
 * This works around a bug in the NS/Sparc 3.3 pre-release
 * limits.h header file.
 * 10-Feb-1995 bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us
 */
#undef LONG_MIN
#define LONG_MIN (-LONG_MAX-1)
#endif
#endif