On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > On 15 jun 2007, at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Hi Jonas, > > > > > > I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but I > > > > think, printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time to > > > > calculate. > > > > But the difference between printf() and writeln() are so, that the > > > > fpc program breaks with errors. > > > > >What kind of errors? > > > >It will break with an error from the library, if the procedure is to slow. > > I'm sorry, but you are not providing enough information to give any useful > comments. There is no reason why a generic library would error out because > certain code is "too slow". Is this a real time application on an embedded > system or so? I think that the problem is the buffering. Just set the text buffer (settextbuf) to a larger buffer, and it should work a lot faster. > > >Do you know a better way to produce a fast formated output in FreePascal. > >I would use FreePascal and not gcc, but the fpc result is not practical. > > If your program depends on converting floating point numbers to string > representation as quickly as possible, I agree that FPC is not the tool you > want in this case. I don't see why not ? What would make it more slow than a comparable routine in libc ? Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
