Cfish for Windows possible ?

[Ras]

Sounds like you might love the fact that C has "restrict" while C++ doesn't then.

I'm split on that one because while it does make things faster with same type aliasing, using raw pointers is not idiomatic modern C++ in the first place.

[dangi12012]

Same goes for you. Go and write a letter to the standard comittee how your 5 line project compiles down to the same assembly and how you think they invented all the features for no reason.

Maybe you should do that? I think the C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability. Do you not see that?

Yes Sopel that is 100% correct. The C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability and performance.
Apparently some people here think that these additions somehow make C++ slower than C which is 100% wrong.

[connor_mcmonigle]

Same goes for you. Go and write a letter to the standard comittee how your 5 line project compiles down to the same assembly and how you think they invented all the features for no reason.

Maybe you should do that? I think the C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability. Do you not see that?

Yes Sopel that is 100% correct. The C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability and performance.
Apparently some people here think that these additions somehow make C++ slower than C which is 100% wrong.

Where did anyone claim that these additions make C++ slower?

[dangi12012]

Same goes for you. Go and write a letter to the standard comittee how your 5 line project compiles down to the same assembly and how you think they invented all the features for no reason.

Maybe you should do that? I think the C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability. Do you not see that?

Yes Sopel that is 100% correct. The C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability and performance.
Apparently some people here think that these additions somehow make C++ slower than C which is 100% wrong.

Where did anyone claim that these additions make C++ slower?

connor_mcmonigle:
Why is CFish faster than C++ Stockfish?

[connor_mcmonigle]

Same goes for you. Go and write a letter to the standard comittee how your 5 line project compiles down to the same assembly and how you think they invented all the features for no reason.

Maybe you should do that? I think the C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability. Do you not see that?

Yes Sopel that is 100% correct. The C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability and performance.
Apparently some people here think that these additions somehow make C++ slower than C which is 100% wrong.

Where did anyone claim that these additions make C++ slower?

connor_mcmonigle:
Why is CFish faster than C++ Stockfish?

Because Ronald is a clever man.

[dangi12012]

Same goes for you. Go and write a letter to the standard comittee how your 5 line project compiles down to the same assembly and how you think they invented all the features for no reason.

Maybe you should do that? I think the C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability. Do you not see that?

Yes Sopel that is 100% correct. The C++ additions are very good for code readability and maintainability and performance.
Apparently some people here think that these additions somehow make C++ slower than C which is 100% wrong.

Where did anyone claim that these additions make C++ slower?

connor_mcmonigle:
Why is CFish faster than C++ Stockfish?

Because Ronald is a clever man.

First correct thing you commented today.

[Sopel]

First correct thing you commented today.

I'm still waiting for your stance on the "restrict" keyword.

[connor_mcmonigle]

...

First correct thing you commented today.

You've wrongly claimed that there was no version of GCC targeting Windows APIs natively. You've wrongly claimed that pass by reference outperforms pass by pointer. You've wrongly claimed that C compilers can't do constant propagation for constant arrays. You've wrongly claimed that move generators are O(n) (where n must always be less than or equal 64? lol) and that you've discovered a new O(1) algorithm betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity analysis.

Meanwhile, I've claimed that modern C++ features aren't practically relevant to chess engine performance (subjective) and that move generators are all inherently O(1) (which is trivially true as the set of inputs on which move generators are defined has finite cardinality).

dangi: 0/4
connor: 2/2

:/

[Sopel]

...

First correct thing you commented today.

You've wrongly claimed that there was no version of GCC targeting Windows APIs natively. You've wrongly claimed that pass by reference outperforms pass by pointer. You've wrongly claimed that C compilers can't do constant propagation for constant arrays. You've wrongly claimed that move generators are O(n) (where n must always be less than or equal 64? lol) and that you've discovered a new O(1) algorithm betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity analysis.

Meanwhile, I've claimed that modern C++ features aren't practically relevant to chess engine performance (subjective) and that move generators are all inherently O(1) (which is trivially true as the set of inputs on which move generators are defined has finite cardinality).

dangi: 0/4
connor: 2/2

:/

In his mind it's

dangi: 4/4
connor: 0/2

you can't change that

:/

[dangi12012]

...

First correct thing you commented today.

You've wrongly claimed that there was no version of GCC targeting Windows APIs natively. You've wrongly claimed that pass by reference outperforms pass by pointer. You've wrongly claimed that C compilers can't do constant propagation for constant arrays. You've wrongly claimed that move generators are O(n) (where n must always be less than or equal 64? lol) and that you've discovered a new O(1) algorithm betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity analysis.

Meanwhile, I've claimed that modern C++ features aren't practically relevant to chess engine performance (subjective) and that move generators are all inherently O(1) (which is trivially true as the set of inputs on which move generators are defined has finite cardinality).

:/

Nope I claimed that Cygwin does not target the winapi directly which is correct. I claimed pass by reference has performance implications which is correct. Please look it up. C++ didnt invent this for fun. You are not informed at all....
At no point I claimed that C compilers cannot do constant folding (WTF?)???
You cannot twist my comments like that. I would like a moderator to delete your comment this is beyond ridiculous trolling. Willfully misinterpreting correct statements. You just pretend I said the opposite to fit your agenda...

You are the one who is claiming that sorting algorithms are O(1) when sorting a limited set. Totally wrong. Your comments are the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum in the supermarket because you are embarassed that you do not know what N means in the O notation. You even called it "Oh" notation.... because you didnt even know how to spell it correctly 1 hour ago.
Sorry but I wont respond to your troll attempts anymore. Not here or in other threads. I will however defend myself if you make up stuff.