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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


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.