Re: std::pow implementation

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

| > It is an "as-if" rule only because that is the way it is described in
| > standardese.   In the C++ community, we do care about history and
| > documented behaviour.   You won't change that, just because you want
| > C++ inline to have a less language specific meaning.
| 
| It's the only possibloe description in standardese here.
| 
| The point is that appealing to the ISO standard (as you did a few msgs ago)
| is not particularly helpful, since the standard really has nothing to say.

I did appeal to two sources: both the ISO standard and "The Design and
Evolution of C++".  I included the ISO standard definition because it
gives the wording on the current C++ definition and it is the result
long elaboration on wordings that took many resources, just to make
sure that thee substitution meaning is conveyed.  I did also appeal
to the D&E because it does give references to the raison d'etre of
inline in C++.  You might choose to ignore that C++ is an "evolved"
language and ignore its history, but that is a not mistake I would
like GCC to make.  C++ simply is not Ada.

| This is a matter that must be decided, as with any code generation issue,
| on the basis of what is pragnmatically best.

This is matter of providing what has always been documented for two
decades. 

-- Gaby