Re: Avoid overhead with fprintf related functions

Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> writes:
> Em sex., 9 de set. de 2022 às 13:20, Nathan Bossart <
> nathandbossart@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> I agree with David [0].  But if you can demonstrate a performance gain,
>> perhaps it's worth considering a subset of these changes in hot paths.

> head:
> Time: 418,210 ms
> Time: 419,588 ms
> Time: 424,713 ms

> fprintf patch:
> Time: 416,919 ms
> Time: 416,246 ms
> Time: 416,237 ms

That is most certainly not enough gain to justify a large amount
of code churn.  In fact, given that this is probably pretty
platform-dependent and you've checked only one platform, I don't
think I'd call this a sufficient case for even a one-line change.