patch to suggest putc/fputs over printf("string") or printf("\n")

Jeffrey A Law law@cygnus.com
Sat Jan 16 14:04:00 GMT 1999


  In message < 19990116111324.C1011@tantalophile.demon.co.uk >you write:
  > Granted.  What I really mean is: if a program already uses printf....
Ah.  Yes, you're absolutely correct.

  > Inline putc is usually much larger at the caller than calling printf.
  > OTOH, putc when called as a function is nice and small at the caller.
Yup.  I think we're in total agreement (now that we're talking about the
same thing :-)

  > It would be nice to avoid pulling in the floating point conversions when
  > possible :-)
Absolutely.  That's why it originally came up internally at Cygnus.  We get a
fair number of questions/complaints in this area.  Some programmer does
fprintf (stream "error: %s", someerror);

Then they start asking why they sucked in the fp emulation code since they
know their code doesn't do any floating point operations.

Of course you and I know those *(&@#$ conversion routines all use floating
point, which caused the fp emulation libraries to get sucked in.


Cheers,
jeff



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list