Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hey, On 03/10/2016 11:58 PM, malo wrote: > as for the most un needed option of the year 2016:) - my target is riot > running 6lowpan host with 6lowpan ndp support plus coap server on 8kB of > ram. so do not have that much memory to waste for printf. Am I the only one? Not at all. Did you try

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hello Oleg, PRIu16 was not good example, PRIi8 is better, since it translates for example to "hhi" in my case, which is not so widely supported by minimal printf implementations. if you want to use formatting macros I would go with one additional layer of macros like by default #define _PRIi8

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hi Paul! On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 04:07:08PM +0100, Andreas "Paul" Pauli wrote: > >I know a lot of us have been unhappy with (some aspects of) Newlib for a long > >time, including the somewhat bloated implementation of printf(). However, > > just curious what the concerns about bloat are. Is it

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hi Oleg, Am 01.03.2016 um 15:23 schrieb Oleg Hahm: [...] I know a lot of us have been unhappy with (some aspects of) Newlib for a long time, including the somewhat bloated implementation of printf(). However, just curious what the concerns about bloat are. Is it related to not-optimized

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hello Oleg, To make it really usable for alternative printf some cleanup in the formatting strings would be desirable as well. since at the mo there is the mix of direct formatting string with macros like PRIi16... wbr malo On 2 March 2016 at 11:47, Oleg Hahm wrote: >

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hey Malo! On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:51:51AM +0100, malo wrote: > that would be even better indeed. > something like #define LOG_PRINTF(...) LOG(LOG_PRINTF, __VA_ARGS__) and to > forbid to use printf? Hm, after thinking about this again, it's a bit more difficult, I guess. There are three types

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hello Oleg, that would be even better indeed. something like #define LOG_PRINTF(...) LOG(LOG_PRINTF, __VA_ARGS__) and to forbid to use printf? wbr malo On 1 March 2016 at 20:31, Oleg Hahm wrote: > Hey malo! > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:25:23PM +0100, malo wrote: >

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hey malo! On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:25:23PM +0100, malo wrote: > what about to have at least "official" wrapper around printf? > > Im using tinyprintf already with riot and to have PRINTF macro defined > would make things much easier. > There are DEBUGs and LOGs together with printf-s sprinkled

Re: [riot-devel] Just another good reason not to implement printf() yourself

Hello Oleg, what about to have at least "official" wrapper around printf? Im using tinyprintf already with riot and to have PRINTF macro defined would make things much easier. There are DEBUGs and LOGs together with printf-s sprinkled in the code. While DEBUG and LOG can be defined to custom