Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Reverse Bitboards

Author: Matt Taylor

Date: 08:13:42 01/17/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 17, 2003 at 03:46:10, Bas Hamstra wrote:

>On January 17, 2003 at 01:01:32, Matt Taylor wrote:
>
>>On January 16, 2003 at 00:57:20, Walter Faxon wrote:
>>
>>>On January 15, 2003 at 02:24:42, Matt Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>MMX does hold one card though that seems to be mocking me. MMX has 8 64-bit
>>>>registers. Integer has 8 32-bit (or 4 64-bit) registers. Hmm...I really hate
>>>>doing this because it's -ugly-, but I think I'm going to use the stack pointer
>>>>as an additional GPR. I will need it.
>>>>
>>>>-Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>Surely you mean the base pointer (ebp) ??
>>>
>>>-- Walter
>>
>>No, I'll need the base pointer too. It's legal to use the stack pointer, just
>>ugly. Intel already thought of this -- different privilege levels use different
>>stacks so an exception in a user program can't kill the OS.
>
>I guess this will suspend interrupts during the time the routine runs? Yes, why
>not. You will get famous if you find a way to outperform rotated bitboards, you
>know. Gerd was already close, he is a real pioneer.
>
>Bas.

Nope. There is no way to do that unless you convince the operating system to do
it for you. Debatable as to whether or not that's a good thing...

Cleanly outperforming rotated bitboards will be quite difficult. That is not my
goal right now; it's too big of a project. We'll see.

-Matt



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.