Re: newlib: fputs aborts on ARM

[Shaun Jackman <sjackman at gmail dot com>]

2005/11/16, Tom Walsh <tom@openhardware.net>:
> No, I disagree: why sprinkle an addtional 1k of avoidance when you can
> put a few bytes of prevention?
...
> Your position seems to be that crashing the system is the better solution?

I made no such statement. Please see the "Straw man" logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#In_logic_and_rhetoric

In my argument regarding calling putc in an inner loop, I state my
position that it is important to allow the programmer to choose when
safety checks are done.

Cheers,
Shaun

Shaun Jackman wrote:
>Consider a putc in an inner loop. The programmer would likely want to
>check if the FILE* is NULL only once outside of the loop. If putc
>checked itself, this would be done over and over inside the loop
>unnecessarily.