Author: Bo Persson
Date: 04:54:19 09/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2003 at 09:36:00, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 27, 2003 at 08:22:47, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>Isn't it better to always use unsigned int instead of int, for example: >> >> for (unsigned int i; i < numner; i++) >> >>instead of >> >> for (int i; i < numner; i++) > >You could test it pretty easy. I have something in my program like this: > >typedef int Int32; >typedef unsigned int UInt32; >typedef Int32 Int; >typedef Uint32 UInt; > >There are others for 16-bit and 8-bit data. The main advantage is that I can >switch to a 64-bit platform by changing a line or two of code here >(specifically, Int and UInt to be 64-bit types). > >I could add a FastInt type or something like that, which will just be the >fastest available type when there is a choice between int and unsigned int. You >could do two compiles and compare. > >Also worth checking out is this chart >(http://www.tantalon.com/pete/cppopt/appendix.htm#AppendixB_RelativeCosts), >although it is on a PIII. Note that the author says statistical error is +/- >0.1. It would be interesting to see how the author tested this. Yes. Also considering that the other table "STL Container Efficiency" contains a number of factual errors, the value of this table can be questioned. > >Also, is there a penalty for doing assignment between int and unsigned, and vice >versa? It seems like some kind of conversion might be needed. No, not if the values are of the same size. Bo Persson
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.