This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:46:29 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
On 30 Jul 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
>
> | Now, assume that the amount of code in the a!=1 case is reduced. At what
> | point does it become beneficial to always inline? Can the programmer
> | tell?
>
> He can profile.
We dont do profile directed inlining. Obviously I would very much
appreciate this! Even simple function size estimate feedback from the
backend used in a two-stage compile would be useful.
> | With Gaby's suggested interpretation, the compiler has *no* choice; it
> | must obey the inlining constraint because the programmer always knows
> | better... Even when prepared to admit that he doesn't.
>
> That assertion is wrong.
Which one? That the compiler has no choice?
Richard.