Really? What does it *DO* that needs 1MB? I admit I don't really know how it works. I have tried to learn macros, but I still think they are basically black magic.
On 22 September 2015 at 22:37, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> wrote: > It also allocates 1MB just to print three numbers. Yikes. > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Carrera <dcarr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hmm... I know it's horrible, but I just added that to my juliarc file :-) >> >> This function is 100x slower than the macro, at about 100 lines in 0.5s. >> I know that's horribly slow for traditional printf() but it's fast enough >> for terminal output. >> >> >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 22:06, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Possible, but I don't relish the thought of forever explaining to people >>> that they need to use printf with or without the @ depending on if they >>> want it to be fast or flexible. If you really don't care about speed, you >>> can just do this right now: >>> >>> printf(fmt::AbstractString, args...) = @eval @printf($(bytestring(fmt)), >>> $(args...)) >>> >>> >>> But actually don't do that because it's so horrifically slow and >>> inefficient I just can't. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Carrera <dcarr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that before any further discussion takes place of how easy or >>>>> hard implementing a high-performance printf is, anyone who'd like to >>>>> comment should spend some time perusing GNU libc's vfprintf >>>>> implementation >>>>> <http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git/blob/ec999b8e5ede67f42759657beb8c5fef87c8cc63:/stdio-common/vfprintf.c>. >>>>> This code is neither easy nor trivial – it's batsh*t crazy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is insane... 2388 lines, half of it macros, and I have no idea how >>>> it works. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And we want to match its performance yet be much more flexible and >>>>> generic. The current printf implementation does just that, while being >>>>> somewhat less insane GNU's printf code. If someone has bright ideas for >>>>> how >>>>> to *also* allow runtime format specification without sacrificing >>>>> performance or generality, I'm all ears. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This might be a stupid question, but what's the harm in sacrificing >>>> performance as long as we keep the current @sprintf for scenarios that call >>>> for performance? I don't always need printf() to be fast. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have some thoughts, but they're just that – thoughts. One option is >>>>> to change the design and avoid printf-style formatting altogether. But >>>>> then >>>>> I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it with people kvetching about how we >>>>> don't have printf. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Probably. Everyone is used to printf and they are comfortable with it. >>>> >>>> Daniel. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
