Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 13:13:03 06/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 15:47:01, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On June 24, 2004 at 15:36:36, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >[Almost everything snipped] > >> Keeping the stack frame small (<=64,128 Byte) is IMHO also >>important. > >You mean stack usage - yes? Under stack frame, I understand the formal layout, >not the size (but I might be wrong). I mean the sizeof all locals and parameters inside search or qsearch. > >Is it really a problem with todays tyoical computers, to use much stack? I >remember DOS and Atari days, where this was an issue. Since I started using DOS >extenders, the issue was gone for me. At least it seems so. Is there some >unusual penalty still, for using much stack space? Of course, I am aware of >caching issues, etc. Even of more subtle things, that references to local vars >might need offsets >= 127 will need longer code. But to me, this seems all more >or less negligible. Yes i mean such code size issues, three bytes more per load store ;-) At least one should try to keep the most often used locals inside this -128/127 range. Maybe POGO handles such issues. 4KByte and more requires some call checkstack for paging reasons. I tend to put things on an explicit stack, specially if items are still less than 128 sized. > >BTW. I always thought, you had another live as some famous math professor. I wish i were one before ;-) Cheers, Gerd > >Cheers, >Dieter
This page took 0.01 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.