Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:25:08 07/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 12:38:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 1998 at 10:31:08, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On July 08, 1998 at 20:33:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On July 08, 1998 at 17:27:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>My problem was that I invariably forgot about the dead-bit scheme and did all >>>>sorts of calculations assuming that captured pieces existed. >>> >>>The only place they exist is in the piece list, and unless you are somehow >>>randomly accessing your piece list, the only way you'll access this is via a >>>loop, so write the loop once and copy-paste :-) >>Why copy-paste? What's wrong with a routine and an "inline this" compile >>directive? It'd be hard to inline just the "for" and an "if". Sure, you could write an iterator function that took another function as a parameter, inline everything, and hope for the best, but I bet you wouldn't get the best every time. >two things. (1) the "inline" attribute in a program only applies to >C++; (2) you can only "suggest" that a C compiler inline a function. Just >like you can "suggest" that a variable be kept in a register by using >"register int sq;". But you can't force it to happen, and you might eat >a lot of function call overhead as a result... It is a suggestion in C++ as well. bruce
This page took 0.01 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.