Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: strins()
Keywords: Lattice C Manx Aztec C strins() sprintf
Message-ID: <109817@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Jun 89 19:32:38 GMT
References: <0929.AA0929@caleb> <109394@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <10285@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 19

In article <10285@watcgl.waterloo.edu> (Geo Swan) writes:
> I have never been able to understand why people didn't use sprintf. 

The answer is fairly simple. sprintf(3) is often entangled with the 
stdio library. When you use it, it depends on a bunch of other stuff
that pulls in most of stdio. Your "simple" function suddenly yanks
14K of code out of the library into your executable. Plus it is a
lot more efficient to use strxxx() routines which are simply loops
where as sprintf() invokes the _doprnt() parser to figure out how to
put together your strings. Generally, sprintf() is easier but strxxx()
routines are smaller. If your compiler/linker is smart enough to 
recognize the difference between when you want full stdio versus 
just simple printf's that helps. 


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"