我们有很多理由支持使用x = x / 2;以下是一些例子:

it expresses your intent more clearly (assuming you're not dealing with bit twiddling register bits or something) the compiler will reduce this to a shift operation anyway even if the compiler didn't reduce it and chose a slower operation than the shift, the likelihood that this ends up affecting your program's performance in a measurable way is itself vanishingly small (and if it does affect it measurably, then you have an actual reason to use a shift) if the division is going to be part of a larger expression, you're more likely to get the precedence right if you use the division operator: x = x / 2 + 5; x = x >> 1 + 5; // not the same as above signed arithmetic might complicate things even more than the precedence problem mentioned above to reiterate - the compiler will already do this for you anyway. In fact, it'll convert division by a constant to a series of shifts, adds, and multiplies for all sorts of numbers, not just powers of two. See this question for links to even more information about this.

简而言之，当你真正想要进行乘法或除法运算时，编写移位代码并没有什么好处，除了可能会增加引入错误的可能性。自从编译器不够聪明到在适当的时候优化这类事情到移位以来，已经过去了。

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。

我同意其他答案，你应该支持x / 2，因为它的意图更清楚，编译器应该为你优化它。

然而，选择x / 2而不是x >> 1的另一个原因是，如果x是一个有符号int并且是负的，那么>>的行为是依赖于实现的。

ISO C99标准第6.5.7节第5项:

E1 >> E2的结果是E1位右移E2位位置。如果E1 无符号类型，或者E1有符号类型且值为非负值， 结果值为E1 /商的积分部分 2 e2。如果E1具有符号类型和负值，则结果值为 是由实现定义的。

x / 2更清晰，x >> 1快不了多少(根据一个微基准测试，对于Java JVM快30%左右)。正如其他人所注意到的，对于负数，舍入略有不同，所以当您想处理负数时必须考虑这一点。一些编译器可能会自动将x / 2转换为x >> 1，如果他们知道这个数字不可能是负数(即使我无法验证这一点)。

即使x / 2可能不使用(慢)除法CPU指令，因为一些捷径是可能的，但它仍然比x >> 1慢。

(This is a C / C++ question, other programming languages have more operators. For Java there is also the unsigned right shift, x >>> 1, which is again different. It allows to correctly calculate the mean (average) value of two values, so that (a + b) >>> 1 will return the mean value even for very large values of a and b. This is required for example for binary search if the array indices can get very large. There was a bug in many versions of binary search, because they used (a + b) / 2 to calculate the average. This doesn't work correctly. The correct solution is to use (a + b) >>> 1 instead.)

使用除法(/)，假设这样更清楚。编译器将相应地进行优化。

X = X / 2;是合适的代码使用..但是一个操作取决于你自己的程序，你想要产生怎样的输出。