This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: std::pow implementation
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:25:46 +0200 (CEST)
- 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.
>
> I'm arguing for #1 and #3 combined. Meaning, inline simple functions
> at low optimization level, try hard at higher level + compiler
> parameter adjustement.
Thats what we have now - generally we go with #3, for small functions we
go with #1 (tune what is small with --param min-inline-insns=XXX).
Richard.