Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:53:12 09/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2004 at 13:18:48, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 16, 2004 at 03:12:33, Tony Werten wrote: > >>Yes. I needed a rewrite anyway, and Borland doesn't seem willing to produce a >>64bit compiler in the near future, wich is a big disadvantage since I wanted to >>use the Kogge-Stone stuff rather than the 0x88 I used until now. ( actually, it >>will be a kind of a mixture) > >How has the Kogge-Stone stuff been working for you? I was never able to get it >to work efficiently enough (rotated bitboards were at least 2x faster). Of >course, I didn't write MMX assembly like Gerd, so obviously it won't be as fast >as his approach. I have found that assembly language can impede the ability of the optimizer. So a routine in assembly that will bench twice as fast in a simple test harness will not cause any discernable difference in a large program, or even slow it down. So assembly always needs to be benchmarked in the place you intend to use it.
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.