From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17569 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 10:50:09 -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 17490 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 10:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 10:50:08 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id A8CC2F2E19; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:50:07 -0400 (EDT) To: gdr@integrable-solutions.net, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, martin@mpa-garching.mpg.de Message-Id: <20030731105007.A8CC2F2E19@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:50:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02297.txt.bz2 > Martin is right that there is a lack of being able to express what one > means. And which this lack you cannot be sure if the programmer with > "inline" meant inline or maybe inline. You cannot even be sure if he meant > do not inline if he omitted inline. It doesnt help that _you_ mean inline > if you write it. Note that in GNAT we have added pragma Inline_Always which says you absolutely must inline, and it is an error if you cannot do so. pragma Inline means that it is desirable to inline if it makes sense and is technically possible, and not saying anything leaves the compiler free to inline if it thinks this is a good idea (with most Ada code, this does not help much).