std::pow implementation

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Therefore, inline the way you describe it, is useful only for 
> functions that are *always* profitable to inline.  Any function that 
> might or might not be profitable to inline should not be declared 
> inline, and the compiler would never inline it.  This sounds silly to
>  me.  Why not let the user tell the compiler `hey, look, this
> function is probably worth trying to inline', but letting the
> compiler decide whether it's actually profitable or not, depending
> not only on the context, but also on machine-dependent features?

IMNSHO, the keyword "inline" means precisely what it says: to inline the
code for a given function, if possible.

You are applying a different semantic concept to "inline" -- you want a
keyword that says "make this function as efficient as possible when
used". As such, it would be better to have a new keyword -- say
"optimize" -- that identifies a function important to performance,
explicitly handing decisions to the compiler.

"Inline", however, has a very precise and direct meaning, and it should
be fuddled with imprecise expectations.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing