[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [gnugo-devel] Work in progress
From: |
Portela Fernand |
Subject: |
RE: [gnugo-devel] Work in progress |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:49:17 +0200 |
Arend wrote:
> Well, result2 is unused in owl_attack/defend, and for the _result_ part
> of the cache entry, I don't see a need to have it work identically for
> different parts of the engine, you just need to provide different
> macros.
> If you can assure that the order of worms in catalog_goal is
> reproducable, then it might be sufficient to store the number of the
> worm in that list, so you could get away with 5-6 bits for almost
> any dragon?
Good idea. result2 is supposed to be 4 bits wide only, but if I understand
correctly, you're suggesting to use these plus the remaining bits in result.
(which would be 1 I think). So, 5 bits. It would suffice with
the current definition of MAX_WORMS (10), which should be increased I guess.
Or, should we be conservative, keep room for more codes and use 4 bits
only ? Keeping track of 15 worms looks fair enough...
Btw, about my problem with lazarus:7, it was actually a
combination of a bug and some missing handling code in value_moves.c
I could solve the problem with a workaround, but then i loose the
blunder:20 PASS. The "real" solution needs actually further modifications
in owl.c, specially with the caches I think.
Well, you were right Dan ;) this is getting quite complex.
/nando
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Work in progress,
Portela Fernand <=