From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17425 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 17:22:03 -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 17386 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 17:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ibm-2.MPA-Garching.MPG.DE) (130.183.83.32) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 17:21:57 -0000 Received: (from martin@localhost) by ibm-2.MPA-Garching.MPG.DE (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.1) id TAA82986; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:21:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:38:00 -0000 From: Martin Reinecke To: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Message-ID: <20030730172155.GA117172@ibm-2.MPA-Garching.MPG.DE> References: <3F27BD38.8020009@mpa-garching.mpg.de> <3F27C5DE.2010604@mpa-garching.mpg.de> <3F27D07A.9070602@mpa-garching.mpg.de> <3F27D7D9.5050705@mpa-garching.mpg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02234.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Not actually. Not just because a function definition is put in a > header file -- or more accurately, is avalaible in translation unit > means that inlining is requested for that function. I just can't think of a way how to do that without breaking some C++ rule; could you please give a short example? If the definition can be made available in more than one translation unit without requesting inlining, I'm perfectly happy. > (I may suggest "mutable inline" for the second category and ~inline > for the third :-) Nice ;) Martin