Author: Hristo
Date: 17:29:59 12/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 1998 at 18:26:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On December 01, 1998 at 18:02:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On November 30, 1998 at 12:01:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>This is all fine and good for larger arrays that you don't access a lot, but if >>>you're talking about your representation of the board, >>> >>>int chess_board[64]; >>> >>>will be a serious win over >>> >>>char chess_board[64]; >> >>I don't know why you are saying this in the face of at least two people saying >>that they tried this exact thing and it was slow. >> >>On an Intel machine you have to do an extra instruction to read a char into EAX, >>unless you use movzx or movsx, which suck. >> >>On an Alpha you have to deal with the alpha (21164) not even having an >>instruction that will read a byte. >> >>These are reasons why I intuit that it might go slower, but if I used this data >>structure I would surely test it and know for sure. >> >>I think that discussions of which implementation will go faster, that are based >>upon predicted instruction timing or cache behavior, are almost always useless. > >I realized about fifteen minutes of lag ago that I am arguing the opposite side >of this argument than I'd intended to. > >I think that this doesn't matter very much. > >This all has to be solvable with experiments. If there isn't an easily measured >difference, then there is no practical difference, so why conjecture about this, >it's better just to do the experiment. > >bruce Now ... you are posting to yourself ? .. :)))) hristo
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.