Reducing the cost of autodecoding

[safety0ff via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 14 October 2016 at 20:47:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 21:49:22 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
>>> Bad benchmark! Bad! -- Andrei
>>
>> Also, I suspect a benchmark with a larger loop body might not 
>> benefit as significantly from branch hints as this one.
>
> I disagree in longer loops code compactness is as important as 
> in small ones.

You must have misunderstood:

My thought was simply that with a larger loop body, LLVM might 
not make such dramatic rearrangement of the basic blocks.

Take your straw man elsewhere :-/

>
> This is more correct : (Tough for some reason it does not pass 
> the unittests)

You're only validating the first byte, current code validates all 
of them.