Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:04:23 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 17:58:39, Dezhi Zhao wrote:
>On February 22, 2003 at 17:48:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>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 *'
>
>are you sure this is the line you get the warning? what is your hash_table
>declaration?
typedef struct tagHASHE
{
__int64 key;
unsigned int depth:7;
unsigned int flags:2;
signed int value:16;
move best;
} HASHE;
for declaration of move I have
typedef struct
{
char from;
char to;
char promote;
char bits;
}
move_bytes;
typedef union
{
move_bytes b;
int u;
}
move;
>
>> warning C4024: 'calloc' : different types for formal and actual parameter 1
>>
>
>or define TableSize as size_t to see what happens.
what is size_t?
I tried to give it a constant value
TableSize=1048576
but it did not help
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.