Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 15:21:27 04/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2003 at 17:59:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 09, 2003 at 12:29:20, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On April 09, 2003 at 12:12:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>if (wtm == 1) >>> score+=bonus1 >>>else >>> score+=bonus2; >>> >>>You could turn that into: >>> >>>score+=wtm*bonus1 + (wtm^1)*bonus2; >>> >>>the new code does more work, but has no branch to mispredict. >> >>And it's soo incredibly readable. :p I know this is not the discussion here, but >>I wanted to point the out nevertheless. :) >> >>Sargon > > >In that case, yes. But in other cases, it is much harder to read because both >sides of the "branch" are encoded into a single instruction and it is not clear >what is going on.... Um.. I'm not sure I understand you now.. are you saying that you find the version "score+=wtm*bonus1 + (wtm^1)*bonus2" more readable? In this case I'm a tad surprised. Sargon
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.