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: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
> The only sane possible semantics I see are:
>
> 1. inline declared functions are inlined always if technically possible
> 2. the inline keyword has no effect
> 3. inline is handled in an implementation defined manner (as stated in the
> standard), maybe by adjusting the set of functions considered for inlining,
> as gcc does.
None of these three semantics make sense to me. The only one that makes sense
is the one I gave before.
Speed up calls to this function, by doing optimizations (most obviously by
inlining the call) that speed up execution, even if it results in extra space
for generated code.
(the comment here is suggestive, not normative, in standards terms, but we
know perfectly well what it means as implementors).