Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:48:33 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 17:39:55, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>On February 22, 2003 at 17:24:26, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>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 ));
>>
>>
>
>why you cast it to tagHASHE * ?!
>
>try this:
>hash_table = (HASHE*) calloc(TableSize, sizeof(HASHE));
Does not help
same 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
>
>>>
>>>>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
>
>this is normal for type checking. the compiler helps to identify the potential
>failures. so, you end up with this, to make it clear:
>
>while (TableSize >= (unsigned) 1 << i)
This helped but the first 2 warning are still there.
The unsigned warning seems to do nothing with TableSize.
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.