This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, aoliva at redhat dot com, bernds at redhat dot com, 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: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:09:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
- References: <20030804174158.11446F2D7C@nile.gnat.com> <m3ptjlmhtw.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:51:55PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
>
> | > 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.
>
> I do insist on the fact that it is not just an "as-if" rule.
I won't insist on the "as-if" rule: the longstanding promise in the GCC
manual that "an inlined function is as fast as a macro" will do for me
as a spec. If you can achieve that without actually doing the inlining,
go for it.