Title is misleading, the compilers do not disagree, running the compiled code produces the same output. The difference is one binary(instructions) are slightly different...
kstenerud 5 days ago [-]
You could actually use SIMD instructions to detect sequences of bytes with the top bit cleared, thus allowing bulk copies of ASCII text without a per-byte loop.
Another optimization would be to take advantage of the fact that codepoint usage tends to cluster around the language of the text. So if you detect usage of 3-byte encodings, chances are you'll continue encountering only 3-byte encodings, with the odd ASCII or emoji codepoints. This opens up even more state machine possibilities.
duskwuff 9 hours ago [-]
> So if you detect usage of 3-byte encodings, chances are you'll continue encountering only 3-byte encodings, with the odd ASCII or emoji codepoints.
Depends on what kind of text you're processing. Many languages use the ASCII range for spaces/newlines, digits, and punctuation.
mort96 9 hours ago [-]
That, plus markup, be it something XML/HTML-like or something Markdown-like.
vlovich123 7 hours ago [-]
FWIW I believe the second optimization is at odds with the first. It’s really hard to do this kind of conditional historical check in SIMD.
Another optimization would be to take advantage of the fact that codepoint usage tends to cluster around the language of the text. So if you detect usage of 3-byte encodings, chances are you'll continue encountering only 3-byte encodings, with the odd ASCII or emoji codepoints. This opens up even more state machine possibilities.
Depends on what kind of text you're processing. Many languages use the ASCII range for spaces/newlines, digits, and punctuation.