This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, <aoliva at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > The issue here isn't what to do with really tiny functions, or even what
> > to to with really enormous ones: it's entirely to do with the boundary
> > between the two -- how does the compiler decide that it has crossed from
> > one to the other? A smart compiler can work that out based on its
> > knowledge of the machine. A dumb one can't. Do we want gcc to be smart
> > or dumb?
> It's not about we want. Wishful thinking doesn't help. It's about two
> a) gcc is currently dumb
GCC 3.3 and older (with tree-inlining) are dumb. GCC 3.4 is much smarter
and will usually come very close to Gaby's requirements (in result, not in
specification, of course).
Try some experiments, folks.
Or do some simple patches, like making the inlining limits default values