From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28602 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2003 12:53:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28574 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 12:53:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl) (62.234.22.215) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 12:53:26 -0000 Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6TCtTiU030850; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:55:29 +0200 Received: (from steven@localhost) by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TCtTFN030848; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:55:29 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl: steven set sender to s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl using -f Subject: Re: std::pow implementation From: Steven Bosscher To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <1059481647.3651.120.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1059483328.3651.144.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:14:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01978.txt.bz2 Op di 29-07-2003, om 14:36 schreef Gabriel Dos Reis: > Steven Bosscher writes: > | If you were so great you would have declated __cmath_power inline in > | the first place. > > Did I claim I am "great" or "so great"? No you did not and I am sorry I formulated things like that. > There are reasons I didn't declare __cmath_power inline in the first place. > That is why I asked for data and ways to reproduce them. What are those reasons? Clearly it helps to add the inline keyword. Something in the standard??? > | Now cut away all the redundant labels and other cruft, and you end up > | with: > > In short, you have demonstrated that if "inline" is given its obvious > meaning, the compiler can do a better job. That is what I claimed in > the first place. No, I've shown that inline still has a meaning in GCC whereas you claimed that "it was decided that the compiler knows better than the programmer", i.e. the compiler overrules the user. What I've shown is that the compiler can take a hint. If you look at the tree inliner, it still honours the inline keyword, and last time I checked, inline functions still were twice as likely to be inlined as non-inline functions (at -O2 anyway). Gr. Steven