Thread: tired of typing same line over and over again....

Originally Posted by matsp

[And of course, calling printf instead of a simple function may actually create MORE code - so that's an argument for NOT using macros].

I'm not following you on this one. The only thing you gain from not using a macro is a smaller executable. You will always have more "runtime overhead" (for lack of a better term) when adding function call than not adding more:

Code:

void foo( void )
{
    printf(" ... ");
    system( "pause" );
}

...

stuff...

foo( ); /* 1 */
    /* 2, the printf */
    /* 3, the system */

VS

Code:

stuff...

printf... /* 1 */
system... /* 2 */

You don't end up with less overhead by adding function calls. The only thing you "lose" is ending up with a larger executable.


Quzah.

IMO, the use of a macro requires extensive justification over the use of a function, while using a function requires zero justification.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

IMO, the use of a macro requires extensive justification over the use of a function, while using a function requires zero justification.

I agree! I also agree that we are probably just confusing the original poster...

Just to clarify: If we OFTEN call printf("\n\n"), then a small function which does printf("\n\n") will generate SMALLER code. It will be (a tiny amount in the whole scheme of calling printf) slower because of the extra call, but since it's a call to a function with NO arguments (no pushing on the stack, and no stack cleanup coming back - that is at the very least two instructions, about 7 bytes worth of code-space PER call), it will be shorter than a call to printf. Likewise for system("pause") and system("cls"). If we are really unlucky, the compiler will also generate a new string for EVERY ONE of these calls, but most compilers will only form one of each constant string per compile unit.

--
Mats

Originally Posted by matsp

Just to clarify: If we OFTEN call printf("\n\n"), then a small function which does printf("\n\n") will generate SMALLER code.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. If you make a function which calls printf, it's going to generate more code than if you had just alled printf in the first place.

Originally Posted by matsp

It will be (a tiny amount in the whole scheme of calling printf) slower because of the extra call, but since it's a call to a function with NO arguments (no pushing on the stack, and no stack cleanup coming back - that is at the very least two instructions, about 7 bytes worth of code-space PER call), it will be shorter than a call to printf.

I beg to differ. How on earth is a function wich calls another function going to generate smaller code than you calling that function directly? That doesn't even remotely being to sound correct.


Quzah.