[avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Anton Erasmus wrote:

> > ..., so I'm inclined to replace the existing itoa() family by
> > Dmitry's submission.  When doing so, I'll probably rename the
> > existing implementations to itoa_full() etc. to preserve them in
> > case anyone really needs that functionality.

> > Opinions?

> I think it would be a good move. In most C libraries the itoa
> function is extremely slow because it caters for all bases from 2 to
> 36. I think having a library compile option that compiles the full
> version in stead of the faster version would be better than renaming
> it.

I'd rather use something like

#define _USE_FULL_ITOA
#include <stdlib.h>

... itoa(x, s, 13);

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)