Re: [gnugo-devel] Semeai

[Inge Wallin]

> 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