Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:42:02 04/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 23:40:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 23:15:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 20, 2002 at 23:14:30, Kevin Strickland wrote: >> >>>On April 20, 2002 at 20:19:21, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On April 20, 2002 at 15:31:02, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>I would not tell "However to all standards, programming of DIEP is very >>>>>professionally done" about the programmer who needlessly duplicates tens of >>>>>megabytes of data only because he did not figured out how to efficiently use >>>>>threads instead of processes. >>>>> >>>>>Or about the programmer who included others' code into his program without the >>>>>permission. >>>>> >>>>>Eugene >>>> >>>>Ouch. I guess it was only a matter of time......... >>>> >>> >>>Also note no reply from Vincent... that really must have hurt. I felt it here. >>> >>>My only question is what code did he use in his program that he didn't get >>>permission? If it was from a program like Crafty and I was Robert I would have a >>>hard time letting one compete in tournaments with a program that included even >>>one line of my code. >>> >>>Interesting question but doubtful I would ever get a serious response. >>> >>>Kevin. >> >> >>Just speculation, but I would suspect Eugene was referring to the egtb.cpp >>code... that probes his tablebases... > >He has no rights to anything. He is simply frustrated guy who >can't program! What on earth are you talking about. Eugene wrote egtb.cpp... he has a copyright disclaimer in it. According to US and international copyright law, that code is his and he has _exclusive_ control over who may or may not use it. Don't make a statement that will get you eaten up in court... > >Also he doesn't know shit from threads vs processes. Vincent, he was doing threads before you were doing C. He understands them quite well. He wrote a threaded egtb.cpp that I tested for him and it _never_ had a failure in SMP mode, which was pretty impressive in my book. Threads are definitely more efficient in terms of memory usage. NO replicated TB indices, cache buffers or EGTB I/O. That is significant. Threads have no inherent disadvantages over separate processes. I teach _both_. Threads are definitely easier to use. > >I can easily share the shared memory and start another process. > >Making it multithreaded means i need to rewrite the entire fucking code, >only a megabyte or 2 and also get 10% slower. Maybe or maybe not. Depends on how you designed it from the start. Didn't make me rewrite everything. The changes were not terribly complex.
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.