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.