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

[Russell Shaw]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Anton Erasmus wrote:
>
> > > ..., 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.
>
> > > Opinions?
>
> > I think it would be a good move. In most C libraries the itoa
> > function is extremely slow because it caters for all bases from 2 to
> > 36. I think having a library compile option that compiles the full
> > version in stead of the faster version would be better than renaming
> > it.
>
> I'd rather use something like
>
> #define _USE_FULL_ITOA
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> ... itoa(x, s, 13);

That won't save any library space tho. If the reduced version is faster
and saves a lot of space, then it could be worthwhile having a compile-time
option.