[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai
From: |
Inge Wallin |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 19:58:02 +0100 (MET) |
> Skip this. My patch has already implemented corresponding
> functionality, but called result1 and result2. You might want to
> change those to be called resulta and resultb if you think that's
> better, otherwise revise the macro names used in owl.c.
I think result1 and result2 are much better than resulta and resultb.
> > #define rr_get_move(rr) (((rr).result_ri_rj >> 0) & 0xffff)
> >
> > /* Set corresponding parts. */
> > #define rr_set_result_ri_rj(rr, result, move) \
> > (rr).result_ri_rj \
> > = (2 << 24 | (((result) & 0xff) << 16) | ((move) & 0xffff))
> > +#define rr_set_resulta_resultb_ri_rj(rr, resulta, resultb, move) \
> > + (rr).result_ri_rj \
> > + = (2 << 24 | (((resulta) & 0x0f) << 16) | \
> > + (((resultb) & 0x0f) << 20) | ((move) & 0xffff))
Maybe we should use bitfields instead of explicit bit shuffling. It
would simplify the code a lot. What do you think?
-Inge
- [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Daniel Bump, 2002/01/24
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/01/24
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Daniel Bump, 2002/01/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/01/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Daniel Bump, 2002/01/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/01/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai,
Inge Wallin <=
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Daniel Bump, 2002/01/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Daniel Bump, 2002/01/27
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/01/27