This is the mail archive of the
c++-embedded@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list .
Re: iostreams (was template bloat)
- To: c++-embedded at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: iostreams (was template bloat)
- From: "P.J. Plauger" <pjp at dinkumware dot com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 8:55:49
- Organization: Dinkumware, Ltd.
From: "Kenneth Porter" <shiva@well.com>
To: "Embedded C++" <c++-embedded@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:58:46 +0700
Subject: Re: iostreams (was template bloat)
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:34:39 +1000, Chris Johns wrote:
>iostream goes beyond just a printf replacement with type-safety. It
>allows all sorts of stream management and control to be performed. I see
>very little need for this in an embedded system.
Depends on the embedded system. You might not want it for a microwave
oven, but it would be handy in some network toasters like a router or
even an advanced VCR with web-based programming. Knowing the cost of
iostreams lets one decide whether it makes sense to use it for a given
application.
How hard is it to factor iostreams so that one doesn't get more than
one needs?
[pjp] It's much easier to factor Embedded C++, which is one of the main
reasons for defining that subset. For the size of embedded systems
contemplated by the EC++ Technical Committee, EC++ makes eminent
sense:
NEC Semiconductor Application Engineering Division reports
the following typical embedded code sizes:
Application Current KB Future KB
camera 48-64 96-256
rice cooker 16-48 64
celluar phone 384+ 768+
printer 32-64 64-128
television 16-48 32-96
VCR 192-256 320+
HDD 32-64 64-128