Re: std::pow implementation

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>]

Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> This is talking specifically about *very small* functions ("one or two 
> assignments").  It says nothing about what happens if the programmer 
> decides to put a 2000 line monstrosity in the middle of a class definition 
> (which would be legal, if somewhat stupid).  A practical compiler 
> eventually has to say "enough is enough", or it is likely to crash, run 
> out of memory or whatever.

I do not want my freedom limited by the stupidity of others. If someone 
explicitly inlines a 2000-line function, let them; the wisdom of such a 
choice (or lack thereof) is an issue for code review and the marketplace.

Let's say that I use a little shell sort in a program; should the 
compiler decide to replace my explicit choice of algorithm with 
quicksort, even though I have determined that shell sort is better?

When I say "inline", I mean inline, regardless of other opinions 
(including those of the compiler).

> I disagree.  What really counts is that the compiler has sufficient 
> information to do a good job when compiling the code (ie to reduce, and 
> hopefully eliminate, the abstraction penalty).  What constitutes a "good 
> job" is up to the compiler...

No.

What constitutes a "good job" is defined by a human mind, not a piece of 
technology that lacks any concept of "good." Over the years, I've found 
many arrogant tools (and not just from Microsoft) -- tools that assume, 
*incorrectly*, that their "wisdom" exceeds mine.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing