In the case of signed integers and right shift vs division, it can make a difference. For negative numbers, the shift rounds rounds towards negative infinity whereas division rounds towards zero. Of course the compiler will change the division to something cheaper, but it will usually change it to something that has the same rounding behavior as division, because it is either unable to prove that the variable won't be negative or it simply doesn't care. So if you can prove that a number won't be negative or if you don't care which way it will round, you can do that optimization in a way that is more likely to make a difference.

除了所有其他好的答案，让我指出当你指除法或乘法时不使用shift的另一个原因。我从未见过有人因为忘记乘法和加法的相对优先级而导致错误。我曾经见过，当维护程序员忘记了通过移位的“乘法”在逻辑上是乘法，但在语法上与乘法的优先级不同时，就会引入错误。X * 2 + z和X << 1 + z非常不同!

如果你处理的是数字，那就使用算术运算符，比如+ - * / %。如果您正在处理比特数组，请使用& ^ | >>这样的比特旋转操作符。不要把它们混在一起;一个表达式如果同时具有位旋转和算术，那么这个表达式就是一个等待发生的错误。

我同意德鲁·霍尔的明确回答。不过，答案可能需要一些额外的注释。

对于绝大多数软件开发人员来说，处理器和编译器已经不再与问题相关。我们大多数人远远超出了8088和MS-DOS。它可能只与那些仍在开发嵌入式处理器的人有关……

在我的软件公司，Math (add/sub/mul/div)应该用于所有数学。 当数据类型之间转换时应该使用Shift。字节长度为n>>8，而不是n/256。

这完全取决于目标设备、语言、目的等。

像素压缩显卡驱动程序?很有可能，是的!

.NET业务应用程序为您的部门?根本没必要去调查。

对于一款面向移动设备的高性能游戏来说，这可能是值得一试的，但前提是要进行更简单的优化。

有些优化编译器无法做到，因为它们只适用于减少的输入集。

下面是c++示例代码，可以执行更快的除法，执行64位“乘倒数”。分子和分母都必须低于某个阈值。注意，它必须被编译为使用64位指令才能比普通除法更快。

#include <stdio.h>
#include <chrono>

static const unsigned s_bc = 32;
static const unsigned long long s_p = 1ULL << s_bc;
static const unsigned long long s_hp = s_p / 2;

static unsigned long long s_f;
static unsigned long long s_fr;

static void fastDivInitialize(const unsigned d)
{
    s_f = s_p / d;
    s_fr = s_f * (s_p - (s_f * d));
}

static unsigned fastDiv(const unsigned n)
{
    return (s_f * n + ((s_fr * n + s_hp) >> s_bc)) >> s_bc;
}

static bool fastDivCheck(const unsigned n, const unsigned d)
{
    // 32 to 64 cycles latency on modern cpus
    const unsigned expected = n / d;

    // At least 10 cycles latency on modern cpus
    const unsigned result = fastDiv(n);

    if (result != expected)
    {
        printf("Failed for: %u/%u != %u\n", n, d, expected);
        return false;
    }

    return true;
}

int main()
{
    unsigned result = 0;

    // Make sure to verify it works for your expected set of inputs
    const unsigned MAX_N = 65535;
    const unsigned MAX_D = 40000;

    const double ONE_SECOND_COUNT = 1000000000.0;

    auto t0 = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    unsigned count = 0;
    printf("Verifying...\n");
    for (unsigned d = 1; d <= MAX_D; ++d)
    {
        fastDivInitialize(d);
        for (unsigned n = 0; n <= MAX_N; ++n)
        {
            count += !fastDivCheck(n, d);
        }
    }
    auto t1 = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    printf("Errors: %u / %u (%.4fs)\n", count, MAX_D * (MAX_N + 1), (t1 - t0).count() / ONE_SECOND_COUNT);

    t0 = t1;
    for (unsigned d = 1; d <= MAX_D; ++d)
    {
        fastDivInitialize(d);
        for (unsigned n = 0; n <= MAX_N; ++n)
        {
            result += fastDiv(n);
        }
    }
    t1 = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    printf("Fast division time: %.4fs\n", (t1 - t0).count() / ONE_SECOND_COUNT);

    t0 = t1;
    count = 0;
    for (unsigned d = 1; d <= MAX_D; ++d)
    {
        for (unsigned n = 0; n <= MAX_N; ++n)
        {
            result += n / d;
        }
    }
    t1 = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    printf("Normal division time: %.4fs\n", (t1 - t0).count() / ONE_SECOND_COUNT);

    getchar();
    return result;
}

这取决于处理器和编译器。一些编译器已经通过这种方式优化代码了，其他的还没有。 因此，每次需要以这种方式优化代码时，您都需要检查。

除非您迫切需要优化，否则我不会为了节省汇编指令或处理器周期而打乱源代码。