Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:53:37 +0200 From: Sylvestre Gallon <ccna.syl@gmail.com> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 166722 for review Message-ID: <164b4c9c0907290153q1585390p4f4bb54045edf152@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200907291049.07162.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <200907290841.n6T8fjqI025079@repoman.freebsd.org> <200907291049.07162.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Hans Petter Selasky<hselasky@c2i.net> wro= te: > On Wednesday 29 July 2009 10:41:45 Sylvestre Gallon wrote: >> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 With this code gcc dump exactly the same s= witch function >> that do nothing. + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 But for the multipleswitc= h the functionn >> switcha and switchb are also generated. > > If you put a "static" into the function declaration, will gcc remove thos= e > functions? > > Also, what happens when switch statements have more spread values than 1,= 2,3,4 > ? > > E.g. 1,2,3,100,101,102,500,501,502 ... > > --HPS > I will update the report following you advices. Cheers, --=20 Sylvestre Gallon (http://devsyl.blogspot.com) Fifth Grade Student @ Epitech & Researcher @ LSE R&D @ Rathaxes (http://www.rathaxes.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?164b4c9c0907290153q1585390p4f4bb54045edf152>