https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70861
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I think if we had gotos instead of assignment here we should do the
> similar thing for the switch table itself.
Absolutely, that was my point.
> Note also the ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70861
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think if we had gotos instead of assignment here we should do the
similar thing for the switch table itself.
Note also the assignment to i is getting in the way for the switch to constant
table form.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70861
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think we should turn this into the following:
((unsigned)a) <= 9 ? table[a] : (a == 110 ? 27 : 77);
That is pull out the 110/default case so table would be small.
