This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, 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: 30 Jul 2003 16:25:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20030730141030.F0FABF2DFF@nile.gnat.com>
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
| >
| > 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.
only some (C++) implementors have decided that they know better than
the programmer and they should not listen to the programmer assuming
that their uses of inline is nonsensical. Other C++ implemetors have
done it different and made good compilers that were known for their
paying attention to the programmer's input.
-- Gaby