Author: Dezhi Zhao
Date: 10:10:27 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 12:48:45, Uri Blass wrote:
>On February 21, 2003 at 11:15:24, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>
>>On February 21, 2003 at 04:14:49, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On February 20, 2003 at 13:51:37, Filip Tvrzsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 20, 2003 at 12:49:39, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess that you mean
>>>>>#define gen_dat_i_mpromote (gen_dat[i].m & (63 << 16))
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess that the laternative that I tried
>>>>>
>>>>>#define to(x) (((x)>>8)&255) was also bad
>>>>>and better was
>>>>>#define to(x) (((x)&255<<8)
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess that in that case I need to change some more code
>>>>>
>>>>>For example
>>>>>
>>>>>I have today some cases when I have
>>>>>switch(m.bits)
>>>>>case 1:
>>>>>case 17:
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>in that case I need to say case 1<<24 and in order not to have an ugly code
>>>>>I need to have more constants for 2^24,2^24*17,...
>>>>>
>>>>>I can use
>>>>>enum
>>>>>{
>>>>> bits1=16777216
>>>>> bits17=
>>>>>...
>>>>>}
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>#define to(x) (((x)>>8)&255) is definitely worse than #define to(x)
>>>>(((x)&255<<8) because in the first case the shifting is done in run-time and in
>>>>the second during compilation. Note also that the result of both macros is
>>>>different.
>>>
>>>Yes
>>>
>>>This is an important note.
>>>
>>>I did not do the mistake of assuming that they are the same but I see that I
>>>have problems.
>>>
>>>I cannot use my usual macros after that translate
>>>
>>>for example
>>>
>>>I had if (piece(m.b.to))=PAWN) in my code
>>>I cannot transalate it to
>>>if (piece(to(m))==PAWN) because to(m) does not get something between 0 and 63
>>>after the change and it seem that I cannot do it faster in this case.
>>>
>>
>>you probabaly need another inline function or micro here:
>>
>>#define IsPawn(move) (piece(move.b.to) == PAWN)
>
>note that piece() is not a function and it is in my defines
>
>#define piece(square) ((info[square])&7)
>
>The point is that info[64] include for every square both the color and both the
>piece and the piece can be accesed by the array info[64] that is an array of
>int.
>
nested macroes are OK.
>>
>>If you are using VC, inline functions are prefered. You can easily browse these
>>inline fuctions. And the compiler does type checking that is certainly helpful.
>
>I do not see a function that I should inline in that case because there is no
>function in the code that I posted(only macros).
>
You missed the point that a inline function is the same in effect as a macro.
A inline function _is_ a much better macro.
>Do you suggest to start changing my code by adding
>#define IsPawn(move) (piece(move.b.to) == PAWN) and only later to change my
>structure and change my definition to something like
>
>#define IsPawn(move) (piece(to(m)>>8)==PAWN)
>
>Maybe it is a good idea(first to do the code more readable and later changing
>the data structure is easier).
>
>Uri
Right. This is an attempt to seperate data and code, though not easy in all
cases.
This page took 0.01 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.