简单回答:不太可能。

长一点的回答: 你的编译器有一个优化器，它知道如何像你的目标处理器体系结构一样快速地进行乘法运算。最好的办法是清楚地告诉编译器你的意图(即i*2而不是i << 1)，让它决定最快的汇编/机器码序列是什么。甚至有可能处理器本身已经将乘法指令实现为微码中的移位和加法序列。

总之，不要花太多时间担心这个。如果你想换，那就换。如果你想乘，那就乘。做语义上最清楚的事情——你的同事以后会感谢你的。或者，更有可能的是，如果你不这样做，之后会诅咒你。

I think in the one case that you want to multiply or divide by a power of two, you can't go wrong with using bitshift operators, even if the compiler converts them to a MUL/DIV, because some processors microcode (really, a macro) them anyway, so for those cases you will achieve an improvement, especially if the shift is more than 1. Or more explicitly, if the CPU has no bitshift operators, it will be a MUL/DIV anyway, but if the CPU has bitshift operators, you avoid a microcode branch and this is a few instructions less.

I am writing some code right now that requires a lot of doubling/halving operations because it is working on a dense binary tree, and there is one more operation that I suspect might be more optimal than an addition - a left (power of two multiply) shift with an addition. This can be replaced with a left shift and an xor if the shift is wider than the number of bits you want to add, easy example is (i<<1)^1, which adds one to a doubled value. This does not of course apply to a right shift (power of two divide) because only a left (little endian) shift fills the gap with zeros.

在我的代码中，这些乘/除2和2的幂运算被大量使用，因为公式已经很短了，每条可以消除的指令都可以获得很大的收益。如果处理器不支持这些位移操作符，就不会有增益，也不会有损失。

Also, in the algorithms I am writing, they visually represent the movements that occur so in that sense they are in fact more clear. The left hand side of a binary tree is bigger, and the right is smaller. As well as that, in my code, odd and even numbers have a special significance, and all left-hand children in the tree are odd and all right hand children, and the root, are even. In some cases, which I haven't encountered yet, but may, oh, actually, I didn't even think of this, x&1 may be a more optimal operation compared to x%2. x&1 on an even number will produce zero, but will produce 1 for an odd number.

再深入一点，如果x和3是0，我就知道4是这个数的因数，x%7是8，以此类推。我知道这些情况可能有有限的效用，但很高兴知道你可以避免模运算而使用按位逻辑运算，因为按位运算几乎总是最快的，而且对编译器来说不太可能是模糊的。

我在很大程度上发明了密集二叉树的领域，所以我预计人们可能不会理解这个评论的价值，因为很少有人想只对2的幂进行因数分解，或者只对2的幂进行乘/除。

不要这样做，除非你绝对需要这样做，并且你的代码意图是移位而不是乘法/除法。

在典型的日子里，你可能会节省一些机器周期(或松弛，因为编译器更知道优化什么)，但成本并不值得——你把时间花在小细节上而不是实际的工作上，维护代码变得更加困难，你的同事会诅咒你。

对于高负载计算，您可能需要这样做，其中每个节省的周期意味着几分钟的运行时。但是，您应该一次优化一个地方，并每次都进行性能测试，看看您是否真的使它更快了，还是破坏了编译器逻辑。

移位通常比指令级的乘法快得多，但你可能会浪费时间做过早的优化。编译器可以在编译时很好地执行这些优化。自己做会影响可读性，而且可能对性能没有影响。如果您已经进行了概要分析并发现这是一个瓶颈，那么这样做可能是值得的。

实际上，这种被称为“魔法除法”的除法技巧实际上可以产生巨大的收益。同样，你应该首先分析它是否需要。但是如果你真的使用它，周围有一些有用的程序可以帮助你弄清楚相同的除法语义需要什么指令。这里有一个例子:http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=12421.0

我从MASM32上的OP线程中引用了一个例子:

include ConstDiv.inc
...
mov eax,9999999
; divide eax by 100000
cdiv 100000
; edx = quotient

会产生:

mov eax,9999999
mov edx,0A7C5AC47h
add eax,1
.if !CARRY?
    mul edx
.endif
shr edx,16

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。