Strange counter-performance in an alternative `decimalLength9` function

[Basile B.]

On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 03:58:15 UTC, Bruce Carneal 
wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you talked about another implementation of 
>> decimalLength9 ?
>
> Yes.  It's one I wrote after I saw your post. Psuedo-code here:
>
>   auto d9_branchless(uint v) { return 1 + (v >= 10) + (v >= 
> 100) ... }
>
> Using ldc to target an x86 with the above yields a series of 
> cmpl, seta instruction pairs in the function body followed by a 
> summing and a return.  No branching.
>
> Let me know if the above is unclear or insufficient.

No thanks, it's crystal clear now.