Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Justin Carlson wrote: > > I still would rather stick to the switch style of doing things in the future, > > though, because it's a bit more flexible; if you've got companies that fix > > errata without stepping PrID revisions or some such, then the table's going to > > have some strange special cases that don't quite fit. > > > > But this is much more workable than what I *thought* you were proposing. And > > not worth nearly as much trouble as I've been giving you over it. > > Then don't use a probe table, but a switch based CPU detection routine that > fills in a table of function pointers. So you need the switch only once. > Geert, Is there some concerns about using table? mips_cpu structure is probably a mixture of data and function pointers. To use a switch statement, one either supplies a function which will fill out the rest of member data in the structure, or fills in all the member data in the case block. Compared with the table solution, the former case is too restricting (it mandates every CPU has its own "setup" routine") and the later case is less clean-looking. Performance-wise table should be basically identical to switch statements. It is a linear search of some integers (PrID). Jun
