Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:55:02 09/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2001 at 00:01:42, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >hi Dann > >if (turno==0) >{ > if (eval0id1[indice]==p->idHashseg && eval0id2[indice]==p->idHashseg2) > { return cualeval0[indice]; } >} >else >{ > if (eval1id1[indice]==p->idHashseg && eval1id2[indice]==p->idHashseg2) > { return cualeval1[indice]; } >} > >you said to me the other day that putting &s there was faster in the profiling >you did. >That operations seemed expensive, I supose because are big arrays. And usually >if one is false(wich I guess happen at least 80% of the time) then both are >false. So I was puzzled why the & is faster there. It depends on the cost of accessing both halves of the &/&& operation. & needs both, && might bail out on the first. But then && will have two jumps, while & will have one. In your case, the branch misprediction seems to overwhelm the cost of fetching both operands for the "&" operation. > >be well. > > >>>can you tell me? >> >>Depends on a zillion things. Sometimes, you cannot make that translation. >> >>For instance, if you want to substitute & for &&, then you must have both >>operands be boolean (IOW: _ONLY_ take on the values 0 and/or 1). >> >>This is not a valid translation: >>int a = 1; >>int b = 2; >> >>if ((a && b) == (a & b) puts("My compiler is broken); >> >> >>If the cost of evaluating the operands is very high, then it may be better to >>use &&. >> >>Example: >> >>if (foo() && bar()) then foobar(); >> >>Suppose that foo() is fast, and bar() is really slow. Further, foo() is 0 most >>of the time. Then you would rather have the short circuit evaluation and >>branch. >> >>Missed branch predictions are expensive on newer chips, but it is not always an >>easy thing to see when one method is faster than the other.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.