Return to Question

In addition:

• If const char * is used instead of string_view, the size could be reduced by a lot but still may be a bit more than the first approach.

• Adding more enum entries resulted in Second Approach consuming lesser than First Approach.

However, doing the following resulted in Second Approach consuming lesser bytes than the First:

• If const char * is used instead of string_view

• Adding more enum entries

If const char * is used instead of string_view, the size could be reduced by a lot but still may be a bit more than the first approach.

For e.g here: here Second Approach consumes 96 bytes with const char * and more enum entries VS the case with string_view. Which is a dramatic improvement perhaps unless I did something wrong?

Is this one way of determining the performance of functions?

So with more enum entries, does the Second Approach outperform the First Approach?

In addition:

• If const char * is used instead of string_view, the size could be reduced by a lot but still may be a bit more than the first approach.

• Adding more enum entries resulted in Second Approach consuming lesser than First Approach.

{gcc12.1 + O3} 166 bytes of First Approach vs 96 bytes of Second Approach (#bytes are calculated at the bottom comments)

So with more enum entries, does the Second Approach outperform the First Approach?

Is this one way of determining the performance of functions?

So with more enum entries, does the Second Approach outperform the First Approach?