[Bug libstdc++/11706] std::pow(T, int) implementation pessimizes code

["rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de  2004-03-11 18:55 -------
Subject: Re:  std::pow(T, int) implementation pessimizes
 code

gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-03-10 20:19 -------
> Subject: Re:  std::pow(T, int) implementation pessimizes code
> 
> "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> 
> | ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de  2004-03-10 20:01 -------
> | Subject: Re:  std::pow(T, int) implementation pessimizes
> |  code
> | 
> | gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
> | 
> | >| >The issue is actually solved in tree--ssa (or was reported as
> | >| >such at some point in the past).  I believe this should be targetted
> | >| >for 3.5.0.  It really is compiler-optimization issue even though it is
> | >| >not labelled as scuh.
> | >| >  
> | >| >
> | >| This is very good to know, if confirmed: do you have a pointer?
> | >
> | >Don't have a pointer handy but, google for messages from Richard G. with the
> | >complain that the ::pow() is no longer "inlined".
> | >  
> | >
> | Anyway, the issue is *not* solved in tree-ssa, because __cmath_power 
> 
> Did you get the report that ::pow() is no longer inlined?

This was fixed by Roger already.  It was basically ::pow(x, a) where a 
is 1, 2, -1 was not optimized without -ffast-math.

Sorry to be so late in the discussion - just returned from one week 
vacation.

Richard.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11706