[avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] I fixed dtostre()

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Chris Baugher wrote:

> > Note that i intend to add a similar flags parameter to dtostrf() to
> > make it compatible (and to make it more useful for a future printf()
> > implementation).  Would anybody mind me changing the parameter
> > sequence of dtostrf() by the same time so it's going to be similar to
> > dtostre()?
> 
> A printf type function would be useful to me.

Probably not only to you :), though you need to be careful whether
it's /really/ going to be useful to you: printf() is a fairly bloated
function, since it'll link half of the existing libc into it,
regardless of whether you need all its features or not.  (Though i've
got an idea about implementing two versions of printf(), one where
you get everything minus floating point, and one full-blown version,
where you can select between both using a #define statement before
including <stdio.h>.)

Anyway, my mere question was whether there are existing users of
dtostre() and dtostrf() who would be bitten by rearranging their
calling parameters.  If there are no objections, i'll just do it.
-- 
J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support engineer
address@hidden        http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/