Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 08:29:51 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 11:08:50, Tijs van Dam wrote:
>On January 26, 2000 at 10:59:13, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>
>>On January 26, 2000 at 08:08:01, Tijs van Dam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> tree->next_status[ply].phase=FIRST_PHASE;
>>> if (tree->hash_move[ply]==0 && do_null && depth>=3*INCPLY) do {
>>> ....
>>> } while(0);
>>
>>The "do { ... } while (0)"
>>above looks peculiar to me. Another copy mistake ?
>
>No, Dr. Hyatt uses this construction a lot. You can break anywhere inside the do
>and continue with what's beyond it. Like "return;" in the middle of a function.
>IMHO, i think it's ugly. And my compiler broke on it in Crafty's evaluation
>function.
I can't find a "break" statement inside the "virtual loop". So, it seems to me
that the "loop" can be omitted. I guess that the optimizer will throw it away
anyway because of the constant 0.
>
>>
>>Uli
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.