[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements
From: |
Joris van der Hoeven |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:39:35 +0100 (CET) |
> I have made a very small test program:
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(){
>
> int test;
>
> test = rand();
>
> switch(test){
> case 1:
> case 10:
> case 100:
> case 1000:
> case 10000:
> case 100000:
> case 1000000: test++; break;
> case 2:
> case 20:
> case 200:
> case 2000:
> case 20000:
> case 200000:
> case 2000000: test++; break;
> case 3:
> case 30:
> case 300:
> case 3000:
> case 30000:
> case 300000:
> case 3000000: test++; break;
> case 4: test++; break;
> case 40: test++; break;
> default: break;
> }
> }
OK, but this is not a very dense table.
Could you please test with something like
switch(test){
case 3: ...;
case 6: ...;
case 9: ...;
...
case 27: ...;
case 30: ...;
default: ...;
}
or similar dense tables with some missing (or permuted) items?
The switches are meant to range over an important part (but not all)
TeXmacs primitives.
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements, (continued)
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements, Dan Martens, 2003/11/10
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements,
Joris van der Hoeven <=
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements, Dan Martens, 2003/11/11
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of C++ switch-statements, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2003/11/11