Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 10:21:56 08/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2002 at 16:14:58, Tony Werten wrote: >On August 04, 2002 at 14:07:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 03, 2002 at 15:12:49, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>On August 03, 2002 at 15:01:03, Dave Kuntzsch wrote: >>> >>>>Well, I've been hanging around here for some time now and have decided to >>>>convert and continue developing a program written in assembler many years ago >>>>for a Z80 cpu. I'm ready to pop for a C or C++ compiler and believe either the >>>>MS or Intel versions would probably be best. My criteria are ease of use, >>>>efficiency of compiled code, development tools, and vendor update support. I >>>>expect that my processor will always be Intel based, but I would like to have >>>>the option to optimize for processor manufacturer and family. I currently have >>>>no experience with C or C++, but do in several other languages. One other >>>>question: Do I need a separate assembler to handle inline assembly code with >>>>these compilers? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks. >>> >>>Depends on what experience you have. Is it Pascal then easiest is to use Delphi. >>>The difference is marginal (or non-existant) compared to C(++) >> >>that 'marginal difference' is about factor 2. > >Yeah right. When was the last time you programmed in Delphi ? > >Anyway, if you want to proof VC++ is better, go to >http://home.xnet.com/~johnjac/JCEC.htm and have fun. I don't see a factor of 2. > >Tony Hint: Consider carefully this excerpt from the FACTORIAL_4 description that says, "Please note that 64 bit integers can only hold numbers up to about 65 factorial. After that the result always comes back as zero." ;-) > > >> >>How many nodes a second do you generate after 1.e4,e5 2.d4,d5 >>and at which processor (so not movelists a second but #movelists*#semilegals >>divided by time)? >> >>>Most modern compilers have a build-in assembler to handle inline asm. >>>Tony >> >>Amazingly still getting used by crafty, but apart from that assembly is >>of course soon getting outdated, because each processor and OS has its >>own assembly, even though it can give another factor 2. The portability >>issue is just too big for assembly. >> >>> >>>> >>>>Dave
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.