aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeStmtGen.cpp:423
+ // Create labels and comparison ops for all case statements.
+ for (const SwitchCase *SC = S->getSwitchCaseList(); SC;
+ SC = SC->getNextSwitchCase()) {
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > How well does this handle large switch statements? Generated code sometimes
> > winds up with thousands of cases, so I'm wondering if we need to have a
> > jump table implementation for numerous cases and use the simple comparison
> > implementation when there's only a small number of labels (and we can test
> > to see what constitutes a good value for "small number of labels").
> >
> > Also, one thing to be aware of (that hopefully won't matter TOO much in
> > this case): the switch case list does not have a stable iteration order
> > IIRC.
> With 10'000 case labels, it seems to be slightly slower if all case labels
> need to be iterated through and slightly faster if the first iteration
> already hits. I'm not too concerned about the performance here tbh.
Okay, we can address performance concerns later, if they arise. Thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/switch.cpp:16-18
+ case 11:
+ case 13:
+ case 15:
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > lol, you should probably fix this so it's not so confusing to casual
> > readers.
> What exactly is the confusing part? :D That the case labels are out of order?
The function is called `isEven` and 11, 13, 15 all return true due to
fallthrough.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137415/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137415
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
