From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:26:41 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] Discussion topics / issues
In-Reply-To: <5437E778.3050306@myspectrum.nl>
References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de>
	<20141010122229.B60DC38352B@gemini.denx.de>
	<5437E778.3050306@myspectrum.nl>
Message-ID: <201410101626.41944.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Friday, October 10, 2014 at 04:04:40 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
> 
> On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
> >> u-boot policy.
> > 
> > This is not just U-Boot philosophy, but something that I would
> > consider a matter of course when writing code - using the appropriate
> > tools for the task at hand.  If all you want to do is sendout a
> > constant string to the utput device, there is no need to invoke a
> > function that provides fancy formatting options.
> > 
> > Don't we always try to use the smallest, most efficient tool that is
> > suited for a task?
> 
> calling printf("%s\n", "string") gets translated into puts by the
> compiler. There should be no difference in the binary.

Is this LLVM specific or does GCC do that too ? This is interesting information.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut