On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > The only drawback of that approach is that its use will restrict the > posible base of these functions to either 2, 8, 10, or 16.
> I tend to see this as benign, as I cannot imagine why anyone would > want to print out numbers base 7 or base 13, 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. I would agree, the savings are worth the trade off in this case. ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
