std::pow implementation

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Wed Jul 30 14:55:00 GMT 2003


Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

| > | 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).

What I'm arguing for is not what have.  For example, something like  
'std::string() const' does not need fiddling with --param -- that is,
its inlining should not depend on the context of use.

-- Gaby



More information about the Gcc mailing list