Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:31:50 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 13:10:27, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>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.
Thanks for the advice.
I use visual C++ but
I saved the files in my project as .c
I guess that inline functions mean that I need to change the .c to .cpp first
but the problem is that after that I do not know what to do and how to write
inline functions.
I need to see some example of a simple code that use inline function to do
it(maybe I can do it by trying to add the word inline before the name of some
functions but I do not like to guess here).
I also do not know if I need to declare inline functions before using it
(today I declare only part of the function that I use in a special file when
functions are declared).
Uri
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.