Add option for a custom formatter #19
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I figured it'd be nice to let the user to have the opt-in for choosing the
vsnprintfimplementation they see fit by adding a macro surrounding the single formatter call tovsnprintf.The
vsnprintffrom stdio.h seems to be not reentrant/malloc-free even whenconfigUSE_NEWLIB_REENTRANTis set in the config and causes hard fault in my benchmark code originally for another freertos lib, so that i couldn't even do the benchmark against thevsnprintfimpl. from for example printf.h to present the results here.But maybe with this addition the ulog could also claim that it would be reentrant when both the formatter and the logger for the formatted result are reentrant?