2009/6/24 Michael Stefaniuc <[email protected]>: > Pierre Bourdon wrote: >> >> I think what Michael meant is that >> sprintf(a, "%s", b); >> >> is doing exactly the same thing as >> strcpy(a, b); > Right, that's what I meant. > >> in a less efficient way. > I'm not that much concerned about efficiency as the compiler will > optimize it. But a strcpy is definitely easier to read.
I tend to assume that the compiler is an idiot that doesn't know a thing about optimisation, but that's me (e.g. using fputs for printing a string constant instead of fprintf). I find it makes for more readable/lean code.
