This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| On Jul 30, 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
|
| > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| > | On Jul 29, 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
| > |
| > | > The point you seem to be missing is that whether a function is inlined
| > | > depends on the context of use -- not just on its intrinsinc complexity.
| > | > That is what is absurd. Not the mere statement of that fact.
| > |
| > | The context of use can make a *lot* of difference on whether it's
| > | worth to inline a function or not.
|
| > But, why don't you trust the programmer? Why do you insist that you
| > know better than the programmer?
|
| Because (1) inline is implicit in C++,
No, that is *your* invention. Inline is NOT implicit. That is just
an invention of people like you who prefer to ignore the purpose of
"inline". Please, do give inline its original and obvious meaning.
| (2) inline's fate is probably no different from that of `register',
But the *fact* is that we're not at same the level of sophistication of
automatic register allocation as we're for inline. Until, then,
please do trust the programmer, in the spirit of C and C++.
| and (3) what's profitable to inline on one architecture may not be
| on another,
Let's the programmer decide. It is *his* choice. He has control do
decide.
| making inline's use highly non-portable should the compiler blindly
| trust it.
Only because you have decided to transmute the original meaning of C++.
Please don't spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. You don't need to.
-- Gaby