[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16
From: |
Anton Erasmus |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}? |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:51:57 +0200 |
On 19 Nov 2005 at 7:57, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Anton Erasmus wrote:
>
> > > ..., so I'm inclined to replace the existing itoa() family by
> > > Dmitry's submission. When doing so, I'll probably rename the
> > > existing implementations to itoa_full() etc. to preserve them in
> > > case anyone really needs that functionality.
>
> > > Opinions?
>
> > I think it would be a good move. In most C libraries the itoa
> > function is extremely slow because it caters for all bases from 2 to
> > 36. I think having a library compile option that compiles the full
> > version in stead of the faster version would be better than renaming
> > it.
>
> I'd rather use something like
>
> #define _USE_FULL_ITOA
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> ... itoa(x, s, 13);
>
Yes,
As long as one always use itoa, and not have to change one's
source to call itoa_full if one needs some other base. And of course
as long as only the actual version used gets linked.
Regards
Anton Erasmus
--
A J Erasmus
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, (continued)
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Daniel O'Connor, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Russell Shaw, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Daniel O'Connor, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Russell Shaw, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Rolf Ebert, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & cowith base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Jörgen Birkler, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & cowith base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/11/19
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & cowith base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Colin O'Flynn, 2005/11/21
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?,
Anton Erasmus <=
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Rolf Ebert, 2005/11/19
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Bernard Fouché, 2005/11/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Colin O'Flynn, 2005/11/22
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Nigel Winterbottom, 2005/11/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Dmitry K., 2005/11/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Derric Tubbs, 2005/11/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Alexei Chetroi, 2005/11/23
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/11/23
- Prev by Date:
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & cowith base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?
- Next by Date:
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?
- Previous by thread:
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & cowith base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?
- Next by thread:
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?
- Index(es):