[avr-libc-dev] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?

[Joerg Wunsch]

Dmitry Xmelkov provided speed-improved versions of itoa() & Co. that
no longer use standard division functions for formatting:

https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?func=detailitem&item_id=3729

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.

While itoa() is not really standardized in any way (at least not for
C, I'm not sure for C++), it is commonly implemented with a possible
base of [2..36], so changing that would constitute an API change.

Opinions?

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)