This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de,s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:59:24 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
> I haven't chosen anything, I just quoted the C Standard. It clearly
> calls for compiler's effort towards fast execution over inline
> substitution. Compared with that, what you claim to be C++'s intended
> meaning (inline even if the resulting code is worse) seems as a very
> misguided idea.
In fact in a language standard, you really can't define the notion of
"inlining" as such, since the standard is not in the business of
describing details about the generated code. So the formal meaning of
inline is most certainly "speed up execution of this function if possible
at the expense of extra space". Yes, notes in the standard and the name
chosen for this hint is strongly evocative, but not normative :-)