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。

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.)

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。

一般右移分为:

q = i >> n; is the same as: q = i / 2**n;

这有时被用来加快程序的速度，但以清晰度为代价。我觉得你不应该这么做。编译器足够智能，可以自动执行加速。这意味着，以清晰度为代价，你不会获得任何好处。

看看《实用c++编程》的这一页。

第一个看起来像除法吗?不。如果你想除法，用x / 2。如果可能的话，编译器可以优化它使用位移位(它被称为强度减少)，这使得它成为一个无用的微优化，如果你自己做它。

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。