Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: C vs asm vs look-up optimization question

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 13:06:19 01/22/02

Go up one level in this thread


On January 21, 2002 at 18:38:44, Tim Foden wrote:

>On January 21, 2002 at 16:16:10, Rafael Andrist wrote:
>
>>Well, I just rewrote the following function in assembler to get better speed (no
>>conditional jumps, less memory access) but the speedup was only minimal. A
>>possible problem of the asm code is, that the instructions doesn't pair well,
>>but it should be still considerably faster. Has anyone an idea what the problem
>>with the code below is? Should I perhaps throw this function out and use a
>>look-up-table?
>>
>>INLINE int Diag045Rot(const int iSqNr)
>>{
>>#if defined (Use_Asm)
>>// 0 <= iSqNr <= 63
>>__asm
>>{
>>  mov eax, iFeldNr;
>>  mov ah, al;
>>  and al, 007h;	//x (iFeldNr%8) --> al
>>  shr ah, 3;	//y (iFeldNr/8) --> ah
>>  sub al, ah;	//x-y --> al
>>  mov ah, al;	//    --> ah
>>  and ah, 080h;	//ah &= 0x80 (isolate sign bit)
>>  add ah, 080h;	//ah += 0x80 (setting the carry bit)
>>  adc ah, 0;	//ah += carry bit
>>  shl ah, 3;	//ah <<= 3;
>>  add al, ah;	//al += 8*(x-y < 0)
>>  xor ah, ah;
>>}
>
>maybe you could try something like this, which is shorter, and looks to be quite
>pairable.  On the down side it uses 3 registers.
>
>Disclaimer: It compiles, but I haven't tested it to see if it produces the
>correct answer :)
>
>__asm
>{
>	mov	eax, square
>	mov	ebx, eax

I think that:

	mov	eax, square
	mov	ebx, square

is faster, because it can be paired but it might be processor dependent.

Ed



>	and	eax, 0x07	// eax = x
>	shr	ebx, 3		// ebx = y
>	mov	ecx, 0
>	sub	eax, ebx	// eax = x - y
>	rol	ecx, 4		// ecx = 8 * (x < y)
>	add	eax, ecx	// eax = x - y + 8 * (x < y)
>}
>
>
>>#else
>>  int x, y;
>>  x = iSqNr%8;
>>  y = iSqNr/8;
>>  return x-y + 8*(x-y < 0);
>>#endif
>
>It may help if you get your compiler to output the assembly code, or if you can
>look at it in a debugger, to see what it does when compiling the above code.
>
>Cheers, Tim.



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.