Speed up compilation times by moving each specialized search function
into its own function. This is faster because compilers can handle many
smaller functions much faster than one gigantic function. The previous
approach generated one giant function with `switch` statements and
inlining to select the implementation.
| Compiler | Flags | Dev Time (s) | PR Time (s) | Delta |
|----------|-------------------------------------|--------------|-------------|-------|
| gcc | -O3 | 16.5 | 5.6 | -66% |
| gcc | -O3 -g -fsanitize=address,undefined | 158.9 | 38.2 | -75% |
| clang | -O3 | 36.5 | 5.5 | -85% |
| clang | -O3 -g -fsanitize=address,undefined | 27.8 | 17.5 | -37% |
This also reduces the binary size because the search functions are no
longer inlined into the main body.
| Compiler | Dev libzstd.a Size (B) | PR libzstd.a Size (B) | Delta |
|----------|------------------------|-----------------------|-------|
| gcc | 1563868 | 1308844 | -16% |
| clang | 1924372 | 1376020 | -28% |
Finally, the performance is not impacted significantly by this change,
in fact we generally see a small speed boost.
| Compiler | Level | Dev Speed (MB/s) | PR Speed (MB/s) | Delta |
|----------|-------|------------------|-----------------|-------|
| gcc | 5 | 110.6 | 110.0 | -0.5% |
| gcc | 7 | 70.4 | 72.2 | +2.5% |
| gcc | 9 | 53.2 | 53.5 | +0.5% |
| gcc | 13 | 12.7 | 12.9 | +1.5% |
| clang | 5 | 113.9 | 110.4 | -3.0% |
| clang | 7 | 67.7 | 70.6 | +4.2% |
| clang | 9 | 51.9 | 52.2 | +0.5% |
| clang | 13 | 12.4 | 13.3 | +7.2% |
The compression strategy is unmodified in this PR, so the compressed size
should be exactly the same. I may have a follow up PR to slightly improve
the compression ratio, if it doesn't cost too much speed.
13cad3abb1