This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Optimize x*x*x*x*x*x using 3 multiplications.

Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:

| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
| > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:44:10PM -0600, Roger Sayle wrote:
| > > I hate naming things and if a higher authority can provide guidance,
| > > I'm more than happy to follow it.  C++'s STL isn't much of a help
| > > here because of the polymorphism.  Perhaps __builtin_Z3powdi?  But I
| > > now understand why you prefer the "f" and "l" before the "i" :>
| > 
| > Shouldn't that be:
| > __builtin__ZSt3powdi
| > __builtin__ZSt3powfi
| > __builtin__ZSt3powei
| 
| _Z11__builtinSt3pow?i, probably.

Well, since everybody wants the answer, it is _ZSt13__builtin_pow?i
corresponding to 

   namespace std 
   { 
      double __builtin_pow(<FLOAT>, int);
   }

But, I would expect them to have a "C" linkage specification.
But that does not matter since they are internal to GCC anyway.

Oh wait a minute, if they are internal to GCC why can't we just
overload them (therefore dropping the "C" linkage requirement) and
call them __builtin_pow? 

-- Gaby
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]