Commit cf69154332
Changed files (4)
doc/langref/test_switch_continue.zig
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+const std = @import("std");
+
+test "switch continue" {
+ sw: switch (@as(i32, 5)) {
+ 5 => continue :sw 4,
+
+ // `continue` can occur multiple times within a single switch prong.
+ 2...4 => |v| {
+ if (v > 3) {
+ continue :sw 2;
+ } else if (v == 3) {
+
+ // `break` can target labeled loops.
+ break :sw;
+ }
+
+ continue :sw 1;
+ },
+
+ 1 => return,
+
+ else => unreachable,
+ }
+}
+
+// test
doc/langref/test_switch_continue_equivalent.zig
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+const std = @import("std");
+
+test "switch continue, equivalent loop" {
+ var sw: i32 = 5;
+ while (true) {
+ switch (sw) {
+ 5 => {
+ sw = 4;
+ continue;
+ },
+ 2...4 => |v| {
+ if (v > 3) {
+ sw = 2;
+ continue;
+ } else if (v == 3) {
+ break;
+ }
+
+ sw = 1;
+ continue;
+ },
+ 1 => return,
+ else => unreachable,
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+// test
doc/langref/test_switch_dispatch_loop.zig
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+const std = @import("std");
+const expectEqual = std.testing.expectEqual;
+
+const Instruction = enum {
+ add,
+ mul,
+ end,
+};
+
+fn evaluate(initial_stack: []const i32, code: []const Instruction) !i32 {
+ var stack = try std.BoundedArray(i32, 8).fromSlice(initial_stack);
+ var ip: usize = 0;
+
+ return vm: switch (code[ip]) {
+ // Because all code after `continue` is unreachable, this branch does
+ // not provide a result.
+ .add => {
+ try stack.append(stack.pop() + stack.pop());
+
+ ip += 1;
+ continue :vm code[ip];
+ },
+ .mul => {
+ try stack.append(stack.pop() * stack.pop());
+
+ ip += 1;
+ continue :vm code[ip];
+ },
+ .end => stack.pop(),
+ };
+}
+
+test "evaluate" {
+ const result = try evaluate(&.{ 7, 2, -3 }, &.{ .mul, .add, .end });
+ try expectEqual(1, result);
+}
+
+// test
doc/langref.html.in
@@ -2495,6 +2495,53 @@ or
</p>
{#code|test_exhaustive_switch.zig#}
+ {#header_close#}
+
+ {#header_open|Labeled switch#}
+ <p>
+ When a switch statement is labeled, it can be referenced from a
+ {#syntax#}break{#endsyntax#} or {#syntax#}continue{#endsyntax#}.
+ {#syntax#}break{#endsyntax#} will return a value from the {#syntax#}
+ switch{#endsyntax#}.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ A {#syntax#}continue{#endsyntax#} targeting a switch must have an
+ operand. When executed, it will jump to the matching prong, as if the
+ {#syntax#}switch{#endsyntax#} were executed again with the {#syntax#}
+ continue{#endsyntax#}'s operand replacing the initial switch value.
+ </p>
+
+ {#code|test_switch_continue.zig#}
+
+ <p>
+ Semantically, this is equivalent to the following loop:
+ </p>
+ {#code|test_switch_continue_equivalent.zig#}
+
+ <p>
+ This can improve clarity of (for example) state machines, where the syntax {#syntax#}continue :sw .next_state{#endsyntax#} is unambiguous, explicit, and immediately understandable.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ However, the motivating example is a switch on each element of an array, where using a single switch can improve clarity and performance:
+ </p>
+ {#code|test_switch_dispatch_loop.zig#}
+
+ <p>
+ If the operand to {#syntax#}continue{#endsyntax#} is
+ {#link|comptime#}-known, then it can be lowered to an unconditional branch
+ to the relevant case. Such a branch is perfectly predicted, and hence
+ typically very fast to execute.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ If the operand is runtime-known, each {#syntax#}continue{#endsyntax#} can
+ embed a conditional branch inline (ideally through a jump table), which
+ allows a CPU to predict its target independently of any other prong. A
+ loop-based lowering would force every branch through the same dispatch
+ point, hindering branch prediction.
+ </p>
+
+
{#header_close#}
{#header_open|Inline Switch Prongs#}