std::pow implementation

[Steven Bosscher]

Op wo 30-07-2003, om 17:28 schreef 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.

Richard Guenther's experience with this meaning for "inline" are not
that positive: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg02140.html.
And then he's the guy who always wants more inlining :-p

Gr.
Steven