Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:00:00 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 15:28:06, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>On February 22, 2003 at 02:54:40, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On February 21, 2003 at 15:59:25, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>>
>>>On February 21, 2003 at 13:31:50, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>yes. a simple rename
>>
>>It is not so simple because I get errors from doing it
>>
>>hash_table = calloc(TableSize, sizeof( HASHE ));
>>
>>: error C2440: '=' : cannot convert from 'void *' to 'struct tagHASHE *'
>> Conversion from 'void*' to pointer to non-'void' requires an explicit
>>cast
>>evaluate.cpp
>>
>>I get also warnings that I did not get in C
>>
>>warning C4390: ';' : empty controlled statement found; is this the intent?
>>
>>My reply Yes it is
>>I ignore opponent time but I may use it in the future so I told my program to do
>>nothing when it gets the opponent time from winboard.
>>
>>warning C4551: function call missing argument list
>>
>>At least I could fix that warning by changing
>>
>>input_available
>>to
>>input_available()
>>
>>Strange that I did not get the same warning in C.
>>
>>Uri
>
>These added warnings are good things in fact. C++ has some more tight type
>checking. So you may consider changing those generating warnings, like this:
>
>hash_table = (tagHASHE*) calloc(TableSize, sizeof(HASHE));
>
>or the C style:
>
>hash_table = (struct tagHASHE *) calloc(TableSize, sizeof(HASHE));
>
>dzhao
Thanks but I still have problems.
I tried in my C files(I renamed them back to C) and got the following warnings
warning C4047: 'function' : 'unsigned int ' differs in levels of indirection
from 'struct tagHASHE *'
warning C4024: 'calloc' : different types for formal and actual parameter 1
Note that TableSize is an integer and here is the relvant defintion in my
program.
typedef struct tagHASHE
{
__int64 key;
unsigned int depth:7;
unsigned int flags:2;
signed int value:16;
move best;
} HASHE;
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.