Author: Ross Boyd
Date: 15:59:30 06/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2004 at 12:31:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 20, 2004 at 06:00:58, Ross Boyd wrote: > >>My engine (coded in C) uses longjmp() to terminate a search. >> >>Is there any disadvantage or hidden overhead in this approach? > >1. No threads. Hence no parallel search. That's a very good reason for not using it. (I mean longjmp(), not parallel search. :) >2. Ugly to read. I think this cuts both ways. Having to test whether search should return after every search() call is also a bit messy. Usually I'm very pedantic about gotoless/jumpless programming but with chess programming I'm pragmatic all the way. >>I notice other engines use a flag which is tested at every node of the search. >>Surely there's an overhead in doing it that way???? > >a few nanoseconds. :) Well, every little bit counts... :) Thanks Bob.
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.