据我所知，在一些机器上，乘法运算可能需要16到32个机器周期。是的，根据机器类型，位移运算符比乘除运算符快。

然而，某些机器确实有它们的数学处理器，其中包含乘法/除法的特殊指令。

Shift和整数乘法指令在大多数现代cpu上具有相似的性能——在20世纪80年代，整数乘法指令相对较慢，但通常情况下不再是这样。整数乘法指令可能有更高的延迟，所以仍然可能有移位更可取的情况。同样的情况下，你可以让更多的执行单元忙(尽管这是有利有弊)。

整数除法仍然相对较慢，所以使用shift代替2的幂除法仍然是一种胜利，大多数编译器将其作为一种优化来实现。但是请注意，要使这种优化有效，红利需要是无符号的，或者必须已知是正的。对于负红利，移位和除法是不相等的!

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
    int i;

    for (i = 5; i >= -5; --i)
    {
        printf("%d / 2 = %d, %d >> 1 = %d\n", i, i / 2, i, i >> 1);
    }
    return 0;
}

输出:

5 / 2 = 2, 5 >> 1 = 2
4 / 2 = 2, 4 >> 1 = 2
3 / 2 = 1, 3 >> 1 = 1
2 / 2 = 1, 2 >> 1 = 1
1 / 2 = 0, 1 >> 1 = 0
0 / 2 = 0, 0 >> 1 = 0
-1 / 2 = 0, -1 >> 1 = -1
-2 / 2 = -1, -2 >> 1 = -1
-3 / 2 = -1, -3 >> 1 = -2
-4 / 2 = -2, -4 >> 1 = -2
-5 / 2 = -2, -5 >> 1 = -3

所以如果你想帮助编译器，那么确保变量或表达式在被除数显式无符号。

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。

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;
}

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.

它是否真的更快取决于实际使用的硬件和编译器。