As anonymous wrote:
>
> Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4546 (project avr-libc):
>
> http://www.sax.de/~joerg/NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
___
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
AVR-libc
> From: Russell Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I had the idea that instead of having single large libraries such as
> stdio and libm, they could be made of say a dozen parts (even one per
> large function) with reduced or enhanced implementations of various
> functions, so rom spaced isn't filled with
Colin O'Flynn wrote:
Hello,
This came out of the discussion with avr-libc about itoa:
Would it be a reasonable idea to change the optimization strategy for linking
around a bit? Right now for example we already have a few options for printf,
and now are looking at different options for itoa.
Colin O'Flynn wrote:
Would it be a reasonable idea to change the optimization strategy for linking
around a bit? Right now for example we already have a few options for printf,
and now are looking at different options for itoa.
Although i think the poll concluded with just using a different n
Hello,
This came out of the discussion with avr-libc about itoa:
Would it be a reasonable idea to change the optimization strategy for linking
around a bit? Right now for example we already have a few options for printf,
and now are looking at different options for itoa.
Although i think the p
As Alexei Chetroi wrote:
> > I join this opinion.
> So do I.
Please stop now. I already stopped the poll, and it's not necessary
to see yet another 352 developers stating that same opinion. I've got
it already.
--
cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
http://www.
As Bjarne Laursen wrote:
> Agree, why not also get the radix out of the parameter list and into
> the function name like:
> char * itoa_2(int /value/, char */string/);
> char * itoa_16(int /value/, char */string/);
Doesn't make sense as these functions are all the same.
--
cheers, J"org
>I vote for something like itoa_fast() and have itoa() keeps its old
features.
Agree, why not also get the radix out of the parameter list and into the
function name like:
char * itoa_2(int /value/, char */string/);
char * itoa_16(int /value/, char */string/);
-Bjarne*
*
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:35:09PM +1000, Dmitry K. wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:35:09 +1000
> From: "Dmitry K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with
> base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?
>
> > > I vote for something like itoa_fast()
