Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, no, the cost is linear. It would only be quadratic if the number
of strcat calls depended on the length of the string.
Well - still snprintf is more efficient.
But there is also no reason not to welcome these submissions if someone already took the time to submit them.
It's more efficient to do:I seriously doubt that sprintf would be faster that a couple of
sprintf(foo, "%s%s%s%s%s%s", bar1,bar2,bar3,bar4,bar5,bar6);
strcats. And I don't think we need to worry about this kind of
micro-optimizations right now...
Shachar
