Shift | Small Android Puzzle Game | Game Engine library

In JavaScript/TypeScript you can throw anything, not only errors. In theory it could be anything in the catch block. If you want to prevent the type error it could make sense to check if the unknown value is a system error before checking the code.

I'm keeping this answer up for now as the comments are useful.

The issue you're going to have to confront is how to deal with function calls. I can't really give you any concrete advice based on your question, because the grammar you provide lacks any indication of the intended syntax of functions calls, but the hint that print(5) is a valid statement makes it clear that there are two distinct situations, which need to be handled separately.

Consider:

Here's a way to do it:

1. detect circles (for the example I assume circle is in the image center and radius is 50% of the image width)
2. unroll circle images by polar coordinates
3. make sure that the second image is fully visible in the first image, without a "circle end overflow"
4. simple template matching

Result for the following code:

The ARM64 orr immediate instruction takes a bitmask immediate, see Range of immediate values in ARMv8 A64 assembly for an explanation. And GCC has a constraint for an operand of this type: L.

So I would write:

You can see the cost of instructions on most mainstream architecture here and there. Based on that and assuming you use for example an Intel Skylake processor, you can see that one 32-bit imul instruction can be computed per cycle but with a latency of 3 cycles. In the optimized code, 2 lea instructions (which are very cheap) can be executed per cycle with a 1 cycle latency. The same thing apply for the sal instruction (2 per cycle and 1 cycle of latency).

This means that the optimized version can be executed with only 2 cycle of latency while the first one takes 3 cycle of latency (not taking into account load/store instructions that are the same). Moreover, the second version can be better pipelined since the two instructions can be executed for two different input data in parallel thanks to a superscalar out-of-order execution. Note that two loads can be executed in parallel too although only one store can be executed in parallel per cycle. This means that the execution is bounded by the throughput of store instructions. Overall, only 1 value can only computed per cycle. AFAIK, recent Intel Icelake processors can do two stores in parallel like new AMD Ryzen processors. The second one is expected to be as fast or possibly faster on the chosen use-case (Intel Skylake processors). It should be significantly faster on very recent x86-64 processors.

Note that the lea instruction is very fast because the multiply-add is done on a dedicated CPU unit (hard-wired shifters) and it only supports some specific constant for the multiplication (supported factors are 1, 2, 4 and 8, which mean that lea can be used to multiply an integer by the constants 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9). This is why lea is faster than imul/mul.

I can reproduce the slower execution with -O2 using GCC 11.2 (on Linux with a i5-9600KF processor).

The main source of source of slowdown comes from the higher number of micro-operations (uops) to be executed in the -O2 version certainly combined with the saturation of some execution ports certainly due to a bad micro-operation scheduling.

Here is the assembly of the loop with -Os:

The assembly seems to be checking if either num or den is larger than 2**32 by shifting right by 32 bits and then checking whether the resulting number is 0. Depending on the decision, a 64-bit division (div rsi) or 32-bit division (div esi) is performed.

Presumably this code is generated because the compiler writer thinks the additional checks and potential branch outweigh the costs of doing an unnecessary 64-bit division.

Try broadcasting:

You can define a computed-property that returns the filtered list according to the params: