Knuth说:

过早的优化是万恶之源。

所以我建议用x /= 2;

这样代码很容易理解，而且我认为这种形式的操作优化，对处理器来说不会有太大的区别。

Knuth说:

过早的优化是万恶之源。

所以我建议用x /= 2;

这样代码很容易理解，而且我认为这种形式的操作优化，对处理器来说不会有太大的区别。

我想说有几件事需要考虑。

Bitshift should be faster, as no special computation is really needed to shift the bits, however as pointed out, there are potential issues with negative numbers. If you are ensured to have positive numbers, and are looking for speed then I would recommend bitshift. The division operator is very easy for humans to read. So if you are looking for code readability, you could use this. Note that the field of compiler optimization has come a long way, so making code easy to read and understand is good practice. Depending on the underlying hardware, operations may have different speeds. Amdal's law is to make the common case fast. So you may have hardware that can perform different operations faster than others. For example, multiplying by 0.5 may be faster than dividing by 2. (Granted you may need to take the floor of the multiplication if you wish to enforce integer division).

如果您追求的是纯粹的性能，我建议您创建一些可以执行数百万次操作的测试。对执行进行多次采样(您的样本量)，以确定哪一个在统计上最适合您的操作系统/硬件/编译器/代码。

Mod 2, test for = 1。不知道c中的语法，但这可能是最快的。

这个问题的答案取决于你工作的环境。

If you're working on an 8-bit microcontroller or anything without hardware support for multiplication, bit shifting is expected and commonplace, and while the compiler will almost certainly turn x /= 2 into x >>= 1, the presence of a division symbol will raise more eyebrows in that environment than using a shift to effect a division. If you're working in a performance-critical environment or section of code, or your code could be compiled with compiler optimization off, x >>= 1 with a comment explaining its reasoning is probably best just for clarity of purpose. If you're not under one of the above conditions, make your code more readable by simply using x /= 2. Better to save the next programmer who happens to look at your code the 10 second double-take on your shift operation than to needlessly prove you knew the shift was more efficient sans compiler optimization.

所有这些假设都是无符号整数。简单的移位可能不是你想要的符号。此外，DanielH提出了一个关于在ActionScript等特定语言中使用x *= 0.5的好观点。

显然，如果你是在为下一个阅读你的代码的人写代码，那么你应该追求“x/2”的清晰度。

然而，如果速度是你的目标，那就两种方法都试一试，把握好时间。几个月前，我做了一个位图卷积例程，它涉及到在一个整数数组中步进，并将每个元素除以2。我做了各种各样的事情来优化它，包括用“x>>1”代替“x/2”的老技巧。

当我计算这两种方式时，我惊奇地发现x/2比x>>1快

这是使用Microsoft VS2008 c++并打开默认优化。