I posted some timings here but I think they went unnoticed because they're buried in a conversation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/7Sn5yys0UJE/Fy8TyTNNQEQJ
Jameson, could you be more specific? In what kind of situation would printf give incorrect output? On Sunday, April 20, 2014 8:06:52 PM UTC-7, Jameson wrote: > > just as a vague warning, va_arg lists are similar to, but subtly > different from their fully specified counterparts. what this means is > that calling printf from julia will work most of the time, but will > also probably fail (by which I mean produce slightly incorrect output) > at random and at the worst possible time given the same inputs > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Kevin Squire > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Looks interesting. I'm not at a computer right now, so can't test. Can > you > > give an example run? How are the timings? > > > > Kevin > > > > > > On Sunday, April 20, 2014, Dominique Orban > > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > > > wrote: > >> > >> Here's how I wrapped printf, allowing for varargs: > >> https://gist.github.com/dpo/11000433 > >> I'd be interested in any comments. I expect it's possible to wrap scanf > >> similarly?! > >> > >> On Friday, February 21, 2014 5:05:32 PM UTC-8, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > >>> > >>> You could maybe make vscanf and company work though. In general, using > >>> the c library for this kind of thing will be awkward. > >>> > >>> > On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:12 PM, "Steven G. Johnson" <[email protected]> > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Varargs functions like scanf won't work with ccall, in general. >
