delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:47:18 +0200 (IST) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
cc: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: snprintf() diff |
In-Reply-To: | <200011181921.OAA04628@envy.delorie.com> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001119074406.11507A-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, DJ Delorie wrote: > I still think flsbuf should handle the exception case, > not the putc macro. Note that this means a function call (to _flsbuf) for each produced character, once the buffer is full. In the important case when the buffer size passed to snprintf is zero, _flsbuf will be called for all of the produced characters. That sounds unfortunate to me. However, if you think this price is worth paying for keeping __putc_raw simple, let's do it that way.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |