-1

Well this was unexpected. AVR libc has many the variants of printf, including vprintf, but is missing vprintf_P. Is this really just not present or implemented elsewhere?

-1

It has vfprintf_P and stdout is a FILE. Why would you want to waste time and space with implementing vprintf_P as well?

If you really want it, you can make your own:

#define vprintf_P(...) vfprintf_P(stdout, __VA_ARGS__)

Incidentally, the source code to vprintf looks like this:

int
vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list ap)
{
    return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, ap);
}

That does exactly the same job as a preprocessor macro - just forwards your request on to the FILE-based function.

It is actually more efficient to use a preprocessor macro than needlessly nesting functions like that - less stack usage, less calls, etc (unless the compiler happens to choose to inline that function, which since it is in a library it likely won't).

The non-FILE based functions can be considered simple wrapper functions to the FILE-based ones. They are mostly provided for convenience, but are actually completely redundant and can all be replaced with direct calls to the FILE-based variant. They mostly still exist purely for historical compatibility. And since _P is specific to AVR libc there is nothing historical for it to be compatible with.

| improve this answer | |
  • That wouldn't be a good explanation for why it does have printf, sprintf, snprintf, vsprintf, vsnprintf, fprintf, vfprintf and all of their _P variants, would it? – Ana May 3 '16 at 14:15
  • It would be just idiotic to miss out printf. All the others either take a file or string as their target, which means they are the base ones. All other functions can be made from them. You don't like it? Then submit a patch to the repository and stop complaining. – Majenko May 3 '16 at 14:23
  • Wow. Fair question met with an obnoxious attitude. Okay, I'm going to go waste everyone's time and space with the patch! – Ana May 3 '16 at 14:39
  • I was going to say the same thing - fair answer met with an obnoxious attitude. You ask a question, get the answer, but don't like that answer because it doesn't agree with the answer you have already formulated inside your head, so start with the 'tude. – Majenko May 3 '16 at 14:43
  • I asked yes/no question. I would've accepted the answer "no, it's not implemented". I didn't ask for your opinion on whether the function is a waste of time and space, did I? It's also a laughable answer in itself since you yourself illustrated that it's a trivial one-liner. That's okay. This is all public. Let others judge. – Ana May 3 '16 at 14:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.