This is the mail archive of the
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: aoliva at redhat dot com, bernds at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jbuck at synopsys dot com, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de, s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl
- Date: 04 Aug 2003 20:26:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20030804181936.901B3F2D85@nile.gnat.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Dewar) writes:
| > It is an "as-if" rule only because that is the way it is described in
| > standardese. In the C++ community, we do care about history and
| > documented behaviour. You won't change that, just because you want
| > C++ inline to have a less language specific meaning.
| It's the only possibloe description in standardese here.
| The point is that appealing to the ISO standard (as you did a few msgs ago)
| is not particularly helpful, since the standard really has nothing to say.
I did appeal to two sources: both the ISO standard and "The Design and
Evolution of C++". I included the ISO standard definition because it
gives the wording on the current C++ definition and it is the result
long elaboration on wordings that took many resources, just to make
sure that thee substitution meaning is conveyed. I did also appeal
to the D&E because it does give references to the raison d'etre of
inline in C++. You might choose to ignore that C++ is an "evolved"
language and ignore its history, but that is a not mistake I would
like GCC to make. C++ simply is not Ada.
| This is a matter that must be decided, as with any code generation issue,
| on the basis of what is pragnmatically best.
This is matter of providing what has always been documented for two