Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:30:22 07/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 16:25:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >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 My comments were not language-specific, but since we are talking "C" here, I am still not compelled to adapt the copy/paste method. I think that a macro that is expanded by the preprocessor would still be better than the alternatives provided. Dave Gomboc
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.