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

[Anton Erasmus]

On 19 Nov 2005 at 7:57, 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);
> 

Yes,

As long as one always use itoa, and not have to change one's
source to call itoa_full if one needs some other base. And of course
as long as only the actual version used gets linked.

Regards
  Anton Erasmus
-- 
A J Erasmus