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。

查看编译器的输出来帮助您做出决定。我在x86-64上使用 gcc (gcc) 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD]

也可以在godbolt上看到编译器的在线输出。

What you see is the compiler does use a sarl (arithmetic right-shift) instruction in both cases, so it does recognize the similarity between the two expressions. If you use the divide, the compiler also needs to adjust for negative numbers. To do that it shifts the sign bit down to the lowest order bit, and adds that to the result. This fixes the off-by-one issue when shifting negative numbers, compared to what a divide would do. Since the divide case does 2 shifts, while the explicit shift case only does one, we can now explain some of the performance differences measured by other answers here.

C代码与汇编输出:

对于除法，你的输入是

int div2signed(int a) {
  return a / 2;
}

这个编译成

    movl    %edi, %eax
    shrl    $31, %eax            # (unsigned)x >> 31
    addl    %edi, %eax           # tmp = x + (x<0)
    sarl    %eax                 # (x + 0 or 1) >> 1  arithmetic right shift
    ret

shift也是一样

int shr2signed(int a) {
  return a >> 1;
}

输出:

    sarl    %edi
    movl    %edi, %eax
    ret

其他isa即使不能做得更好，也能同样有效地做到这一点。例如GCC For AArch64使用:

        add     w0, w0, w0, lsr 31      // x += (unsigned)x>>31
        asr     w0, w0, 1               // x >>= 1
        ret

就CPU而言，位移运算比除法运算快。 然而，编译器知道这一点，并将适当地优化到它可以的程度， 因此，您可以以最有意义的方式编写代码，并且知道您的代码是有意义的 有效地运行。但是请记住，由于前面指出的原因，在某些情况下，无符号整型可以比整型更好地优化。 如果你不需要符号算术，那么不要包含符号位。

让你的意图更清楚……例如，如果你想除法，使用x / 2，并让编译器将其优化为shift运算符(或其他任何运算符)。

今天的处理器不会让这些优化对程序的性能产生任何影响。

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

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。