This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kgardas at objectsecurity dot com,rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:10:30 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
>
> Suggesting that a programmer must only use inline when they are convinced
> that better code will always result (ie that using inline when it may only
> sometimes produce better code is "dangerous") sounds even more like
> spreading FUD to me. You're going to get people saying "Never use inline,
> it can make your code worse".
I think one reason that the treatment of inline has been much more successful
in Ada than in C++ (at least in the gcc environment) is precisely that Ada
programmers are very used to using inline extensively, and assuming that
the compiler will pay significant attention to their input. In fact we find
that -O3 often damages performance in Ada, since the programmer has done
a pretty good job of selecting what needs inlining.
So anything that discourages the use of the inline directive is unfortunate