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 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.