Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: typical nps on single cpus

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 19:53:03 02/14/00

Go up one level in this thread


On February 14, 2000 at 22:18:18, Dan Newman wrote:

>On February 14, 2000 at 15:25:24, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On February 14, 2000 at 14:38:14, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>>
>>>On February 14, 2000 at 03:16:33, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>
>>>[big snip]
>>>>
>>>>How much faster do you think a switch is than using virtual dispatch?
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>What is a virtual dispatch?
>>>José.
>>
>>What you get if you went OO-crazy and had a piece class with descendents for
>>pawn, knight, bishop, etc., then called a member function.
>>
>>Dave
>
>I've tried to go OO-crazy once or twice, but the one thing that seemed to
>get in the way and require some really hairy solution was pawn promotion.
>The only thing I could think of doing was to maintain a pool of extra
>promotion pieces and perhaps overload new and delete in the piece class to
>get the new piece from this pool.  But all that extra mechanism seemed like
>too much...
>
>-Dan.

I'm not suggesting that going OO-crazy is a good idea (hence my name: OO-crazy
:-).  I'm just wondering how much longer do you think a virtual dispatch would
take than a standard switch statement.

(Assuming there are no classes being loaded dynamically at run-time, there
doesn't seem to be a reason that it should be any slower at all, in this
particular case.  Do C++ compilers usually know that classes at the bottom of an
inheritance hierarchy are amenable to optimizations that would be unsafe on
classes that are higher up?)

Dave



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.