Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:24:26 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 17:14:35, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>On February 22, 2003 at 16:00:00, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>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 *'
>
>this warning must come from somewhere else. you can double-click at the warning
>to see which line it is complainng about.
I cannot double click on the warning but the line is exactly line 370
and here is the content of that line:
hash_table = calloc((struct tagHASHE *) TableSize, sizeof( HASHE ));
>
>>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.
>
>parameter 1 of calloc is an unsigned. so you may define TableSize as unsigned.
only helps to get another warning for line 366 that is posted here
while (TableSize>=(1<<i))
main.c(366) : warning C4018: '>=' : signed/unsigned mismatch
I still have these 2 warnings for line 370
warning C4047: 'function' : 'unsigned int ' differs in levels of indirection
from 'struct tagHASHE *'
warning C4024: 'calloc' : different types for formal and actual parameter 1
Uri
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.