Re: [cc65] scanf ?

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: troy silvey (
Date: 2001-02-23 22:56:48

>The 8K number for scanf is just an estimate for a first version 
>written completely in C. It's based on the fact that scanf is even more 
>complex than printf. But it's an estimate and it may be wrong. It may
also be 
>possible to get lower numbers by size optimizations or a rewrite in
assembler, but 
>I won't do that for the first version. It is usually easier to rewrite 
>existing C code in assembler, than to write it in assembler from

I appreciate the effort. For now I am happy to use getchar and I am
happy with the executable size. If it's possible to add scanf at a 
small price in size that would be nice. But since we are coding
for native systems like the C64 that only have about 40k
immediatly available (more with tweeking) I think you made the
right choice going with the smaller choices. I think for curiosity
I will try to rewrite my code using putchar instead of printf and
see how that effects the size and speed.


Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:39 CET