Nice improvement to switch statements!
> optimization of switches would be different for different architectures. every x86, amd, intel, and then all the non x86s. they all have very different execution times and cache times and pipeline times. there is no single answer. there is usually a huge pipeline cost for a computed jump.
> when you are considering native-client restrictions, jump tables become impossible.
> also note that go switches are different than c switches. non-constant cases have to be tested individually no matter what.
> having said that, a large (where large depends on architecture) dense switch would be faster than what is implemented now. BUT there are two parameters needed to implement it. how large and how dense. no matter what is used for large and dense, there will be a micro-benchmark on some machine, under some alignment, with some branch cache that will look wrong.
> what is implemented is as follows.
> 1. in order, all non-constant cases are compiled and tested as if-elses.
> 2. groups of larger than 3 constant cases are binary divided and conquered.
> 3. 3 or fewer cases are compared linearly.
> i honestly dont think there is a much better algorithm across all machines.