>>> Does it improve code? Does it improve anything?
>> Yes. - I got such an impression.
>> * Is it more efficient to call the function "seq_printf" for the desired
>> data processing
>> for a single character than to pass it to the function "" in a string?
>> * Will the required data transfer shrink a bit for the affected functions
>> because of
>> such a change?
> Which are questions _you_ should be able to answer.
I wonder that the answers are not obvious for you already.
Calling the function "seq_putc" will be more efficient than "seq_printf"
in this case because of the following reasons.
1. How does the distribution look like for supported processor architectures
where the data transfer for bytes (as a function call parameter)
is faster than for (string) pointers?
2. Did anybody measure already how many the execution times can vary
for these functions?
3. seq_printf() provides more functionality as this kind of programming
interface was designed for a bigger purpose.
How much do you care for consequences when such general functions
are called with input data they were not designed for mainly?
4. The seq_putc() implementation is so simple.
Where do you get doubts about its efficiency for the data processing
of a single character?
> It's your patch, after all.
Yes. - I published a special update suggestion once again.
> Once you do (and prove that the answer is 'yes' to the above two
> questions) the patch will be applied.
How do you think about to share a bit more from your software development
and testing experience?
Which call frequencies do you observe for the affected functions?