From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13402 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 14:10:31 -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 13391 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 14:10:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 14:10:31 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id F0FABF2DFF; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:10:30 -0400 (EDT) To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kgardas@objectsecurity.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de Message-Id: <20030730141030.F0FABF2DFF@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:21:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02174.txt.bz2 > > Suggesting that a programmer must only use inline when they are convinced > that better code will always result (ie that using inline when it may only > sometimes produce better code is "dangerous") sounds even more like > spreading FUD to me. You're going to get people saying "Never use inline, > it can make your code worse". I think one reason that the treatment of inline has been much more successful in Ada than in C++ (at least in the gcc environment) is precisely that Ada programmers are very used to using inline extensively, and assuming that the compiler will pay significant attention to their input. In fact we find that -O3 often damages performance in Ada, since the programmer has done a pretty good job of selecting what needs inlining. So anything that discourages the use of the inline directive is unfortunate