[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:10:50 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of David Brown
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 6:38 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
>
>
> An interesting structure for replacing switches is a binary if tree:
>
Interestingly, that is one of the 3 forms that the compiler can generate for a
switch. Technically though I think it is a binary jump table.
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, (continued)
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/03/01
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Vincent Trouilliez, 2009/03/01
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/03/01
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/03/01
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/03/01
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/03/01
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/03/01
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/03/02
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/03/01
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance,
Weddington, Eric <=
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/03/01