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。

刚刚在我的机器上编译了这个:

int a = ...;
int b = a * 10;

当分解它时会产生输出:

MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[ESP+1C] ; Move a into EAX
LEA EAX,DWORD PTR DS:[EAX+EAX*4] ; Multiply by 5 without shift !
SHL EAX, 1 ; Multiply by 2 using shift

这个版本比纯移位和加法的手工优化代码更快。

你永远不知道编译器会得到什么，所以最好只是简单地写一个普通的乘法，让它按自己想要的方式优化，除非在非常精确的情况下，你知道编译器无法优化。

Python测试对相同的随机数执行相同的乘法1亿次。

>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> setup_str = 'import scipy; from scipy import random; scipy.random.seed(0)'
>>> N = 10*1000*1000
>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536);', setup=setup_str, number=N)
1.894096851348877 # Time from generating the random #s and no opperati

>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x*2', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.2799630165100098
>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x << 1', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.2616429328918457

>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x*10', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.2799630165100098
>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); (x << 3) + (x<<1)', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.9485139846801758

>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x // 2', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.490908145904541
>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x / 2', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.4757170677185059
>>> timeit('x=random.randint(65536); x >> 1', setup=setup_str, number=N)
2.2316000461578369

因此，在python中做移位而不是用2的幂来做乘法/除法，会有轻微的改进(~10%用于除法;~1%的乘法)。如果它不是2的幂，可能会有相当大的放缓。

同样，这些#将根据你的处理器、编译器(或解释器——为了简单起见，在python中这样做)而改变。

和其他人一样，不要过早地优化。编写可读性非常强的代码，如果不够快就进行分析，然后尝试优化慢的部分。请记住，编译器在优化方面比您做得更好。

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。

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。

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.