[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.2008231227350.12553@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 12:33:30 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: direct coding of asctime_r
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Looking into musl I found that the current implementation is basically
> doing verbatim what the C standard says, namely uses `snprintf` under
> the hood to do the formatting. This has obviously the disadvantage
> that this drags the whole infrastructure that is needed for `snprintf`
> into the executable.
>
> Making some tests, I found that coding `asctime_r` straight forward
> with byte-copying has it shave off about 10k from the final
> executable.
Do I understand correctly that this 10k figure is for an "application"
that does not use stdio at all otherwise? If so, I believe that is a
quite unrealistic test — why would an application use asctime_r but then
avoid use of stdio to do something useful with the result?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
