On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:39 AM, wm4 wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:40:11 -0500
>> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>
>>> The table in question is a 253 byte one. In fact, it turns out that
>>> dynamic generation of the table results in an
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:39 AM, wm4 wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:40:11 -0500
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> The table in question is a 253 byte one. In fact, it turns out that
>> dynamic generation of the table results in an increased binary size.
>>
>> Code compiled with GCC 5.2.0, x86-64
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:40:11 -0500
Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> The table in question is a 253 byte one. In fact, it turns out that
> dynamic generation of the table results in an increased binary size.
>
> Code compiled with GCC 5.2.0, x86-64 (size in bytes), before and after
> patch:
> old: 623