This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: hahn at physics dot mcmaster dot ca, tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
> > pretty hard to do for the great majority of C++ (or Ada for that matter)
> > programmers who have not the slightest awareness of machine language or
> > its implications.
> so since some programmers are imperfect,
> none of them should get nice sharp tools? please, no!
> C/C++, at least, have never shied from enough-rope features.
> regards, mark hahn.
Well I am not sure it is a matter of rope here. The idea that all class
definitions in C++ should be regarded as potentially highly target
instruction set dependent since the programmer is expected to analyze
for a particular architecture what should and should not be inlined
seems a bit gruesome.
There are times when programming oblivious to the details of the target
architecture is exactly the right thing to do, and that should surely be
most of the time when using a language like C++ (otherwise why not write
in ASM to start with).