From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeroen Hofstee Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:09:19 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Discussion topics / issues In-Reply-To: <201410101626.41944.marex@denx.de> References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de> <20141010122229.B60DC38352B@gemini.denx.de> <5437E778.3050306@myspectrum.nl> <201410101626.41944.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <543804AF.9050101@myspectrum.nl> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Marek, On 10-10-14 16:26, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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. I was talking about gcc, it has been doing such since ages ago (unless you purposely disable it). clang does it as well. Regards, Jeroen