Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 06:52:55 08/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2004 at 08:28:53, Tord Romstad wrote: >On August 10, 2004 at 05:37:10, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>Generic inline wrapper classes for pieces, moves, hashentries etc. are IMHO nice >>to hide implementation and to write "ugly" code once, without any performance >>penalty, some examples which same assembly output: >> >> if (piece & 0x80) ... >> if (piece & SLIDING_BIT) ... >> if (isSlding(piece) ) ... >> if (piece.isSliding()) ... >>or >> if (hashentry.flags & 0x01) ... >> if (hashentry.flags & LOWER_BOUND) ... >> if (hashentry.isLowerBound() ) ... >> >>I prefere the latter. > >I understand why you want to avoid the '&' variants, but why is >piece.isSliding() better than isSliding(piece), and hashentry.isLowerBound() >better than isLowerBound(hashentry)? > >Tord Actually I prefere: if (hashentry.flags & LOWER_BOUND) ... Reasons: 1) less total writing and less possible places to go wrong 2) faster compile, 3) I can rest assured that it is executed as fast as possible and create smallest machine code (I am never sure about different compilers treating template classes or inlining things or switches or...) 4) it is easy to read for other people without referring to some other file For one-time things I will just use plain code... -Andrew-
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.