Bug in csh (history, "!a%100s").

[Michael Greim]

In article <1640 at zen.co.uk>, frank at zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) writes:
> In article <774 at sbsvax.UUCP> greim at sbsvax.UUCP (Michael Greim) writes:
> >As to "puts() will never be slower than printf()": I recall reading
> >somewhere that some people think about implementing puts() using printf().
> 
> If I ever found that a C library I was using had puts() (or any other
> straightforward string function) implemented by calling printf(), I'd
> be round at the vendor's factory gates with a large shovel to reprogram
> the clown responsible.  Just in case you know someone who's thinking
> about it.
If it isn't too far away, I'd join you :-)
I've dug in our archives, and lo! I have found the reference in question.
Here it is:

#From: bostic at ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Keith Bostic)
#Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
#Subject: Re: [n]eqn(1) speedup
#Keywords: [n]eqn munches too much CPU time
#Message-ID: <25589 at ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
#Date: 11 Aug 88 17:52:19 GMT
#References: <583 at sbsvax.UUCP>
#Organization: University of California at Berkeley
#Lines: 13
#Posted: Thu Aug 11 18:52:19 1988
#
#In article <583 at sbsvax.UUCP>, bs at sbsvax.UUCP (Bernard Sieloff) writes:
#> Subject: [n]eqn(1) speedup
#> Input to eqn with no effect to eqn itself will be passed unaltered to
#> stdout, but by calling printf()!
#> Eqn behavior is heavily sped up, if the "passing"-printf() calls  are
#> changed to fputs() calls.
#
#This is implementation dependent.  On the current BSD system, printf
#is significantly faster, for strings that don't contain percent signs,
#than [f]puts calls.  I expect to make [f]puts just call printf in the
#near future.
#
#Keith Bostic

> --
> Frank Wales, Systems Manager,        [frank at zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank]
> Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217 

	-mg
-- 
Michael Greim    Email : greim at sbsvax.informatik.uni-saarland.dbp.de
                 or    : ...!uunet!unido!sbsvax!greim
[.signature removed by the board of censors for electronic mail's main
executive computer because it contained a four letter word ("word")]