Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use emplace_back instead of push_back #1826

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

UniQP
Copy link
Contributor

@UniQP UniQP commented Nov 22, 2018

No description provided.

@mcostalba
Copy link

Ok for me. Please format the commit message as following:


Use emplace_back in TB code

No functional change.

@UniQP
Copy link
Contributor Author

UniQP commented Nov 24, 2018

@mcostalba done

@snicolet
Copy link
Member

@UniQP
This looks like a good candidate for SF-11 dev after SF 10 is out. What I would like to see is a proof that the patch is non-functional in the presence of tablebases: probably a count of tablebase hits on bench, with/without the patch, would be sufficient. Do you have such information available?

No functional change.
@UniQP
Copy link
Contributor Author

UniQP commented Nov 27, 2018

@snicolet I rebased the branch to the current master and executed bench with and without the PR:
sf_9-274-g7b6fa353.log
sf_9-275-g191a7d8e.log

I also filtered the tbhits from both logs:
tbhits_sf_9-274-g7b6fa353.log
tbhits_sf_9-275-g191a7d8e.log

The number of tbhits are equal in both logs.

@snicolet
Copy link
Member

@UniQP Thanks, I will merge it!

snicolet pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2018
The patch was tested for correctness by running bench with and
without the change against current master, and the tablebase hit
numbers were found to be identical in both cases. See the pull
request comments for details:
#1826

No functional change.
@snicolet
Copy link
Member

Merged via 340e9ea, thanks!

@snicolet snicolet closed this Nov 29, 2018
phlopsi pushed a commit to phlopsi/Stockfish that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2018
The patch was tested for correctness by running bench with and
without the change against current master, and the tablebase hit
numbers were found to be identical in both cases. See the pull
request comments for details:
official-stockfish#1826

No functional change.
@UniQP UniQP deleted the emplace_back branch March 15, 2019 17:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants