Author: Paul
Date: 11:13:47 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2001 at 21:52:10, Larry Griffiths wrote: >I also like the VCL, Paul. I have resorted to using #defines a lot and writing >inline assembler whenever possible. I have been using a lot of MMX instructions >lately and my program may only run on Pentium II or higher machines in the near >future. Hi Larry ... Yes, I remember having seen you post some asm #defines last year, right? So, basically, you're the missing optimizing part of the BCB compiler :) Maybe you should offer your services to Borland ;) Also you are one of very few using MMX instructions, I believe, haven't seen much of that here! I have to admit that I've not yet used any asm within BCB, for a couple of reasons. For one, I use old GNU style move generation, and the 64bit bitboards that you use lend themselves better for asm. Secondly, I don't like programming assembler on the Pentium, mainly because the number of different instructions is so huge, and the number of registers is so low! I did program in assembler ~10 years ago on the ARM processor, now that was an architecture I liked! No more than 10 instructions and 16 32bit registers. Maybe Ed (of Rebel fame) would agree with me :) I wish they would scale up the current StrongARM to >1GHz and make it 64 bits; I would start with bitboards immediately :) WinCE already runs on it, I believe. What does your program look like: did you build a GUI with BCB5 around your engine or is the engine integrated in the GUI .exe like mine? I do have a separate engine class, but it's all in one program. I still have to make mine WinBoard compatible, but am not sure how to do that. Mainly use it for analysis, not for playing games ... Groetjes, Paul
This page took 0.02 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.