From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17792 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2003 03:02:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17775 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 03:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 03:02:43 -0000 Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23465; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:59:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200304220302.XAA23465@caip.rutgers.edu> To: dj@redhat.com Subject: Re: Libiberty's snprintf for v3? Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, pcarlini@unitus.it References: <200304220052.h3M0qO830610@greed.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01038.txt.bz2 [second try, this time with a Subject:] > From: DJ Delorie > > > But, on the upside we won't need vasprintf.c, and the resulting code > > will probably be faster than the current implementation if we cache > > the fd. > > File I/O is very expensive on Microsoft platforms (DJGPP, Cygwin, > MinGW) compared to what you're used to under Unix platforms, even to > /dev/null (both djgpp and cygwin emulate /dev/null, I don't know about > mingw). Ok, but that's only a concern if these platforms are missing [v]snprintf and therefore would rely on the libiberty copy. E.g. I'd expect that cygwin has snprintf. Don't know about the others. Can you please clarify the other platforms' situations? -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu