Florian Weimer via Gcc writes:
> * Andi Kleen via Gcc:
>
>> Joern Wolfgang Rennecke writes:
>>
>>> This has come up several time over the years:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00158.html
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00155.html
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
On 23/06/2025 12:31, Florian Weimer wrote:
Also carry-less multiply persumably.
It's challenging to use those instructions for compiling switch
statements because they would then be used all over the place.
Not necessarily; you can hide them in an UNSPEC if you are worried that
exposing the
* Andi Kleen via Gcc:
> Joern Wolfgang Rennecke writes:
>
>> This has come up several time over the years:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00158.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00155.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2010-March/190234.html
>>
>> , but
Joern Wolfgang Rennecke writes:
> This has come up several time over the years:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00158.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00155.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2010-March/190234.html
>
> , but maybe now (or maybe a while ago)
Hi Joern,
I've also been thinking about implementing something like that. First I would
experiment with implementing switches using perfect hashing functions to see if
this really speeds up execution on current CPUs. Then I would try to come up
with some heuristic that tells GCC when it is advan
