From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-80119-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4119 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 14:04:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4110 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 14:04:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 14:04:37 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id A9DACF2DFF; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: dewar@gnat.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net,
	s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl
Message-Id: <20030730140436.A9DACF2DFF@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:11:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02169.txt.bz2

> Also portability is not only about different targets, but also about
> different compilers! Declaring something inline for one compiler doesnt
> necessary have the same desired semantics for inline for another one.

good point ...