Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:18:56 -0500
Message-Id: <200011181818.NAA03898@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <8011-Sat18Nov2000100818+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Subject: Re: snprintf() diff
References: <200011132023 DOT PAA04930 AT qnx DOT com> <3A1328A7 DOT C9866232 AT bigfoot DOT com> <200011160105 DOT UAA01282 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <8011-Sat18Nov2000100818+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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
Precedence: bulk


> Is it worth the function call overhead?  All _flsbuf would do is test
> the same _IOSTRG flag and return the character, but we also pay the
> function call overhead.

If the putc macro becomes too complex, gcc will refuse to inline it.
It's also worth it to keep an extra comparison out of the macro; we
already have a comparison for when the buffer's full, we don't need
another one in the macro.