std::pow implementation

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:

| > | > | With Gaby's suggested interpretation, the compiler has *no* choice; it 
| > | > | must obey the inlining constraint because the programmer always knows 
| > | > | better...  Even when prepared to admit that he doesn't.
| > | > 
| > | > That assertion is wrong.
| > | 
| > | Which bit of it?  It's what I understand you to be suggesting.
| > 
| > As I've repeatedly said, there are pathological cases where the
| > compiler simply cannot inline.  Secondly, I'm saying that the
| > compiler does not always know better than the programmer.  And in fact,
| > the programmer most of the time declares "inline" on purpose.  
| > 
| > Transmuting the meaning of "inline" is creating more fear, uncertainty
| > and doubt than we needed.
| 
| Suggesting that a programmer must only use inline when they are convinced 
| that better code will always result (ie that using inline when it may only 
| sometimes produce better code is "dangerous") sounds even more like 
| spreading FUD to me.  You're going to get people saying "Never use inline, 
| it can make your code worse".

Please, I didn't suggest that.

-- Gaby