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: dewar at gnat dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, bernds at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,jbuck at synopsys dot com, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de,s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
> Defining a member function within a class declaration has exactly the
> same meaning. And that has been documented in every manual since 1981.
Yes, we all agree that the as-if standard meaning is the same, that is
never in dispute. A compiler that ignores all inlining is perfectly
well in conformance, and that might make sense on a machine which favors
this approach, e.g. the transputer where a call is much faster than a jump.