Re: optimizing case-statement execution

wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Fri, 27 Nov 1992 04:17:44 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
optimizing case-statement execution raymond@harp.ecn.purdue.edu (1992-11-22)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (1992-11-23)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution erspert@athena.mit.edu (1992-11-25)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution nr@volkl.Princeton.EDU (1992-11-25)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution wtyler@adobe.com (1992-11-27)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-12-04)
Re: optimizing case-statement execution krste@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (1992-12-05)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 04:17:44 GMT
Followup-To: comp.compilers
Summary: why not reentrant?
References: 92-11-126 92-11-145
Keywords: C, code, optimize, comment

erspert@athena.mit.edu (Ellen R. Spertus) writes:
>>Description of switch code using string scanning deleted<<


>... your code is not reentrant, and you write to the code segment.
>Why do I even mention it? Because self-modifying code is fun!


Is it really necessary to write to the code segment? Why not keep the
values to be scanned in the data segment, solving both the problems
you've mentioned?


Bill
--
Bill Tyler wtyler@adobe.com
[Indeed, you would normally put the data in the data segment. But this
does write to the end of an otherwise read-only table. On the '86 the
scan has a length count which avoids the need to stash the value at the
end of the table; this hack was really for the PDP-11. -John]
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.