Re: switch statement generation

ltd@netcom.com (Larry Drebes)
Thu, 14 Apr 1994 04:00:56 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
switch statement generation dgaudet@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (1994-04-06)
Re: switch statement generation mps@dent.uchicago.edu (1994-04-07)
switch statement generation dgaudet@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (1994-04-07)
Re: switch statement generation henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1994-04-10)
Re: switch statement generation ch+@cs.cmu.edu (1994-04-11)
Re: switch statement generation ok@cs.rmit.oz.au (1994-04-13)
Re: switch statement generation ltd@netcom.com (1994-04-14)
Re: switch statement generation chase@Think.COM (1994-04-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: ltd@netcom.com (Larry Drebes)
Keywords: code, optimize
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 94-04-031 94-04-088
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 04:00:56 GMT

mps@dent.uchicago.edu (Michael Spertus) writes:
>Switch statement suggestion.
>I would like to see the keyword nodefault: added to switch statements.


Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@cs.rmit.oz.au) wrote:
: We don't _need_ another keyword. The construction
: default: abort();


This misses the point of the thread. The above example doesn't nothing to
help the compiler unless abort() is recognized as something "special".


On the same issue, you can get the optimization of the suggested
nodefault: by using the computed goto's extension in the gcc compiler.
The problem of optimizing the C switch statement is one of reasons that
cfront is losing ground to native compilers.
--

Post a followup to this message

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