We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Joe Buck]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:28:15PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
> >8-bit tree code (baseline):
> >
> >real    0m51.987s
> >user    0m41.283s
> >sys     0m0.420s
> >
> >subcodes (this patch):
> >
> >real    0m53.168s
> >user    0m41.297s
> >sys     0m0.432s
> >
> >9-bit tree code (alternative):
> >
> >real    0m56.409s
> >user    0m43.942s
> >sys     0m0.429s
> 
> I hate to ask, did we see the time for 16 bit codes?  If it is faster  
> than subcodes (51-53), maybe we just take the 4.5% memory hit and  
> move on.  I ask, as I'd hate to saddle everyone with subcodes in the  
> name of compile time, when there is any alternative that is better  
> that doesn't cost as much in compile time.

But these numbers show that subcodes don't cost *ANY* time, or the
cost is in the noise, unless enable-checking is on.  The difference
in real-time seems to be an artifact, since the user and sys times
are basically the same.