Switch implementation

[Robert Jacques]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:45:27 -0400, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>  
wrote:

> retard:
>
>> Instead of O(n) linear search or O(ln n) binary search, why not use O(1)
>> jump tables in this case?
>
> I don't exactly know. But you must take into account the constants too,  
> it's not just a matter of worst-case computational complexity. Probably  
> when the density of a large jump table becomes too much low, its  
> experimental performance on modern CPUs gets worse than a binary search  
> among few entries. But I am not sure, I have not written&run benchmarks  
> on this.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Well there are 28 labeled cases and ~16kb of jump table address space.  
(32kb on 64-bit platforms)