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);
That won't save any library space tho. If the reduced version is faster
and saves a lot of space, then it could be worthwhile having a compile-time
option.
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
