Re: std::pow implementation

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:

| > There are reasons I didn't declare __cmath_power inline in the first place. 
| > That is why I asked for data and ways to reproduce them.
| 
| What are those reasons?  Clearly it helps to add the inline keyword. 
| Something in the standard???
| 
| > | Now cut away all the redundant labels and other cruft, and you end up
| > | with:
| > 
| > In short, you have demonstrated that if "inline" is given its obvious
| > meaning, the compiler can do a better job.  That is what I claimed in
| > the first place.
| 
| No, I've shown that inline still has a meaning in GCC whereas you
| claimed that "it was decided that the compiler knows better than the
| programmer", i.e. the compiler overrules the user.

And what I claimed corresponds to reality.  See

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-05/msg00014.html

for *facts* from mainline.  The compiler has decided it can ignore
inline when its counting of something has reached some limits, i.e. he
knows better than the programmer.

|  What I've shown is that the compiler can take a hint.

No, you've shown that on a branch development, the compiler appears to
give "inline" its obvious meaning.

| If you look at the tree inliner, it still honours the inline keyword,

I know how the tree inliner is treating the inline keyword.
It honours the keyword only when it thinks that matches its own view.

-- Gaby