> >Dan? Does this fly in the face of your overall design, or is this
> >a good thing?
>
> Cool, but not a good thing. The problem with it is there's a lot of
> extraneous stuff scattered in the function table structure. That's going to
> reduce the L1 cache hit rate, and I'd rather not do that.
>
> Separate arrays would be fine, but just not unified like that.
("This may be free software, but them ain't free cycles!" :-)
Suppose I put back the function-pointers-only array and remove the
function pointers from the new one (partway back to the way it was).
Do you see other problems with this? Simon had some portability and
readability concerns. The former I don't see (but would like to), and
the latter I...well...don't see :-)
Regards,
-- Gregor
