Re: [PATCH v2] x86/lib: Optimize num_digits() and fix INT_MIN overflow

[David Desobry]

On 1/20/26 22:46, David Laight wrote:

> Maybe better to write as:
> 	if (val < 0) {
> 		d = 1;
> 		v = -val;
> 	} else {
> 		d = 0;
> 		v = val;
> 	}
> The compiler will only generate one jump.

Agreed, I've adopted this in v3.

> >   
> > -	while (val >= m) {
> > -		m *= 10;
> > -		d++;
> > +	switch (v) {
> > +	case 0 ... 9:
> > +		return d + 1;
> > +	case 10 ... 99:
> > +		return d + 2;
> > +	case 100 ... 999:
> > +		return d + 3;
> > +	case 1000 ... 9999:
> > +		return d + 4;
> > +	case 10000 ... 99999:
> > +		return d + 5;
> > +	case 100000 ... 999999:
> > +		return d + 6;
> > +	case 1000000 ... 9999999:
> > +		return d + 7;
> > +	case 10000000 ... 99999999:
> > +		return d + 8;
> > +	case 100000000 ... 999999999:
> > +		return d + 9;
> > +	default:
> > +		return d + 10;
>
> clang generates something really horrid for that.
>
> Either:
>      if (v <= 9) return d + 1;
>      if (v <= 99) return d + 2;
>      if (v <= 999) return d + 3;
>      if (v <= 9999) return d + 4;
>      if (v <= 99999) return d + 5;
>      if (v <= 999999) return d + 6;
>      if (v <= 9999999) return d + 7;
>      if (v <= 99999999) return d + 8;
>      if (v <= 999999999) return d + 9;
>      return d + 10;
> or:
>      if ((++d && v > 9) &&
>          (++d && v > 99) &&
>          (++d && v > 999) &&
>          (++d && v > 9999) &&
>          (++d && v > 99999) &&
>          (++d && v > 999999) &&
>          (++d && v > 9999999) &&
>          (++d && v > 99999999) &&
>          (++d && v > 999999999))
>          d++;
>      return d;
> generate better code.
> In particular it is almost certainly best to only have one taken branch.
> Dumping in a load of unlikely() might help that as well.
> (Neither compiler does the ++d inline, the add is done before the return.)

Good catch. I have replaced the switch statement with a linear if-chain 
in v3 to ensure better code generation for both GCC and Clang.

David