This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Jul 2003 18:38:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <200307301629.h6UGTBk21027@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
[...]
| > When I say "inline", I mean inline, regardless of other opinions
| > (including those of the compiler).
|
| Really? And when you say "register" do you really mean that?
It is tempting to make the analogy with "register", but you have to
acknowledge the fact that inlining strategy is not at the same level
of sophistication as register allocation. Therefore, any answer you
get for the question above is irrelevant to whether you should decide
whether your programmed inliner always knows better than the
programmer. Until then, please listen to the programmer. Don't
transmute "inline".
-- Gaby