Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 14:00:49 12/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2003 at 16:35:26, Russell Reagan wrote: >I think you are right. I was thinking of a situation like Ed Schröder describes >on his webpage (http://members.home.nl/matador/chess840.htm#INTRO). That is a significantly different situation. Once you have function call overhead, and once you don't. You cannot really compare this, to the situation of the method I suggested, where both times function call is needed. You could argue, that without function pointer, the function can be inlined. In my experience, for a function of the complexity of a (maybe) typical Incheck routine, inlining will only hurt (at least on x86 with few registers available). Even when comparing typical switch with an array of function pointers, function pointers can win. http://www.chess-archive.com/ccc.php?find_thread=305510 There I wrote a simple code generator for an array of function pointers, and it was fastest on some machines (although, it was surprising). Regards, Dieter
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.