Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 12:40:15 06/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
Hello Russell, >After making my decision to use C++ instead of C, I thought I had most of the >drawbacks covered, or at least I was content with the drawbacks that I hadn't >solved. One drawback that I didn't think of was that the constructors for an >object would run even if they did nothing. So when I create an array of moves in >my alpha-beta function, the constructor will run many times, and when done >recursively, that's a bad thing. > >I saw several people post workarounds using malloc() or other slightly cryptic >hacks that I'd rather avoid, and these are the ideas I've come up with so far to >try and solve this problem. > >My first idea was to use an STL vector instead of an array, and since a vector >wouldn't actually contain any objects when it's initialized, the constructors >shouldn't run right? My solution would require that the objects had proper >constructors so that I could do something like the following: > >vector<Move> legalMoves; >legalMoves.push_back( Move(from,to) ); > >That would allow me to get the correct move into the vector without having to >"waste" constructor calls. > >My second idea was to use a struct instead of a class for things that will be >created on the fly like Move. If I did this, I could still add methods to the >Move struct in C++, but as far as I know I don't have to write a constructor, >and then I could only initialize the data manually. > >So will either of these solutions work, or does anyone have any other >suggestions? > Simply make sure your constructor is empty and your class has no virtual functions. The compiler will then optimize the call away. I had the same problem recently and this solution worked with gcc. Oliver
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.