Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:36:22 07/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2003 at 22:30:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 17, 2003 at 18:33:11, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>>I understand now that i=A0[j] is faster than i=A[0][j] >> >>No Uri, if A0 and A are static or global int arrays it should be the same. >>Because the address A0 is known by the compiler, same for A[0]. >>A constant left most index doesn't matter. > >Thanks. >I hope that I understand >It is a bad idea to use pointers and it is better if I get rif of the new arrays >and replace the 8 arrays bu 8 defines. > >What confused me was that you wrote in your post: > >#define A0 A[0] > >and maybe later >#undef A0 >or even in other context >#define A0 A[1] > > >I do not see a reason to use undef or #define A0 A[1] >I plan now to use: > >#define A0 A[0] >#define A1 A[1] >#define A2 A[2] >#define A3 A[3] >#define A4 A[4] >#define A5 A[5] >#define A6 A[6] >#define A7 A[7] > >and get rid of the old arrays A0,...A7 without the need to change the source >code and if it has similiar speed then later I plan to save time by deleting >every case that I have A[i][j]= because I do not need it when I already have >Ai[j]=... and Ai[j] get the same value. > >Uri I see that it already gave me a small speed improvement even before deleting the places when I update the old array without using the defines. Uri
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.