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 30, 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
| > |
| > | > But the fact is that the compiler is not doing better by going its own
| > | > programmed logic. We've not reached the same level of sophistication
| > | > as for register allocation.
| > |
| > | And your solution for the problem is to dumb it down further such that
| > | it doesn't even attempt to do a good job?
|
| > I'm not proposing to dumb it further.
|
| Oh. `The compiler should do what the user tells it to (WRT inline),
| no more, no less.' Can you explain to me what room is left for the
| compiler to be intelligent (WRT inline) given this proposition?
Because it is not mine?
| > In fact, people like you who make bogus quote of the standard to claim
| > that inline is implicit in C++ have already push the compiler to its
| > dumbest state.
|
| I'm tempted to respond with something along the lines of `people like
| you who refuse to accept obvious arguments claiming they're
| unconvincing...',
The "obvious arguments" is claiming that inline is implicit in C++ with
bogus quote of the standard?
| but I'll get out of this discussion now, before it
| turns into a fight. I've already exposed my arguments, and so far
| your arguments have only shown that you only care about a small part
| of the big picture.
No, I do not only care about a small part of the big picture, or else
I would adhere to your view.
| > In effect, I'm proposing to return to first principles where the C++
| > programmer is trusted, is listened to, not treated by the software
| > as a dumb person unable to make sensible decisions.
|
| If you're not reasonable when presented with a simple argument just
| because it goes against your theory,
And being reasonable means adhereing to your view?
-- Gaby