On 7/26/2012 1:14 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> Obviously it's backwards and awful. Makes me wonder why can't we take it
> directly, what's limitation ?
> How about allowing it, at least in inline assembly?

It can be done, it's just that nobody has done the implementation in the inline assembler.

On 7/26/2012 8:55 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> int test(int i)
>> {
>>      switch (i)
>>      {
>>          case 3: i += 3; break;
>>          case 4: i += 4; break;
>>          case 5: i += 5; break;
>>          case 6: i += 6; break;
>>          case 7: i += 7; break;
>>          case 8: i += 8; break;
>>          default: i += 100; break;
>>      }
>>      return i;
>> }
>>
>
> Do the above in loop. And more cases of course. Something around 40 should do.


Here's my entire test program. It runs a consistent 5 to 10% slower with the new method compared with the old. Color me very disappointed.
=======================================================
import core.stdc.stdio;

int test(int i)
{
    switch (i)
    {
        case 3: i += 3; break;
        case 4: i += 4; break;
        case 5: i += 5; break;
        case 6: i += 6; break;
        case 7: i += 7; break;
        case 8: i += 8; break;
        default: i += 100; break;
    }
    return i;
}

void main()
{
    for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++)
    {
        for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
            test(j);
    }
    printf("%d\n", test(6));
}

On 27-Jul-12 00:31, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 1:14 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> Obviously it's backwards and awful. Makes me wonder why can't we take it
>> directly, what's limitation ?
>> How about allowing it, at least in inline assembly?
>
> It can be done, it's just that nobody has done the implementation in the
> inline assembler.
>
>
Great! I guess I should file another enhancement request?

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On 27-Jul-12 00:38, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 8:55 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> int test(int i)
>>> {
>>>      switch (i)
>>>      {
>>>          case 3: i += 3; break;
>>>          case 4: i += 4; break;
>>>          case 5: i += 5; break;
>>>          case 6: i += 6; break;
>>>          case 7: i += 7; break;
>>>          case 8: i += 8; break;
>>>          default: i += 100; break;
>>>      }
>>>      return i;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Do the above in loop. And more cases of course. Something around 40
>> should do.
>
>
> Here's my entire test program. It runs a consistent 5 to 10% slower with
> the new method compared with the old. Color me very disappointed.

Thanks. I'll play with it a bit if time permits.



-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On 27-Jul-12 00:50, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 27-Jul-12 00:31, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 1:14 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> Obviously it's backwards and awful. Makes me wonder why can't we take it
>>> directly, what's limitation ?
>>> How about allowing it, at least in inline assembly?
>>
>> It can be done, it's just that nobody has done the implementation in the
>> inline assembler.
>>
>>
> Great! I guess I should file another enhancement request?
>
Filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8448

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On 7/26/2012 2:17 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> Filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8448


Thank you.