On 19/10/17 5:01 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 19/10/17 07:45, Chris Johns wrote: >> - Remove the printf support leaving the direct printk support configured >> with TESTS_USE_PRINTK and all other output goes via a buffered vsniprintf >> call to printk. > > What is the benefit of this buffered IO compared to printk? >
I implemented IO buffering to start with and the testing failed so I added the '\n' detection and flushing. I wanted to use vsniprintf to make sure the same output is generated. If the output is the same as printk we can use printk. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
