std::pow implementation

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Robert Dewar wrote:

> > 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.
>
> None of these three semantics make sense to me. The only one that makes sense
> is the one I gave before.

These are clearly defined semantics suitable for a standards document,
yours below falls to #3, obviously.

> Speed up calls to this function, by doing optimizations (most obviously by
> inlining the call) that speed up execution, even if it results in extra space
> for generated code.

This is of course what we have in mind if specifying "inline". But I would
expect the compiler doing similar things if only specifying -O2 globally
and not -Os.

Richard.