Xref: utzoo comp.lang.modula2:772 comp.lang.misc:1434 comp.lang.c:9263 comp.lang.pascal:807
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!beta!unm-la!unmvax!turing.UNM.EDU!mike
From: mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Modula2's godawful IO.
Message-ID: <942@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 88 20:18:17 GMT
References: <764@ndsuvax.UUCP> <535@m10ux.UUCP> <730@mhuxm.UUCP>
Sender: news@unmvax.unm.edu
Reply-To: mike@turing.UNM.EDU.UUCP (Michael I. Bushnell)
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 33

In article <730@mhuxm.UUCP> gak@mhuxm.UUCP (Vincent Hatem) writes:

>Besides, the whole idea of the WriteCard()-style I/O system is to remove the
>20K overhead that printf() adds to programs. 95% of the functionality of 
>printf() is never used, and you're just making your text segment larger.

On 4.3 BSD on a Vax, I get the following:

% size doprnt.o
text	data	bss	dec	hex
2196	36	0	2232	8b8

% size printf.o
text	data	bss	dec	hex
40	36	0	76	4c

To use printf, it ups your text segment by a whole 2236 bytes.  Wow.
It also isn't too slow: 4.3BSD doprnt is coded in assembly language
and manages to be quite fast.  Puts is about 10% of that (200 bytes)
but isn't really any faster.  But CERTAINLY NOT a "20K" overhead.  Go
ahead and use printf.  It doesn't really cost you that much.



                N u m q u a m   G l o r i a   D e o 

			Michael I. Bushnell
			HASA - "A" division
14308 Skyline Rd NE				Computer Science Dept.
Albuquerque, NM  87123		OR		Farris Engineering Ctr.
	OR					University of New Mexico
mike@turing.unm.edu				Albuquerque, NM  87131
{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!turing.unm.edu!mike