From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9116 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 20:08:16 -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 9087 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 20:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 20:08:15 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id C2B7DF2DC7; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:08:14 -0400 (EDT) To: gdr@integrable-solutions.net, jbuck@synopsys.com Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Message-Id: <20030730200814.C2B7DF2DC7@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:28:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02263.txt.bz2 > Gaby, the scenario Alex describes is COMMON. Constant propagation > frequently causes lots of code to be thrown away, and any automatic > inlining decision that doesn't take this effect into account is broken. Note thjat this is even more the case in Ada, where the normal way of doing conditional compilation is by the use of constant booleans (there is no macro preprocessing defined in Ada).