From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-80472-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11706 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 17:34:59 -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 11690 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 17:34:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (198.182.56.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 17:34:58 -0000
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h74HYn825368;
	Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:34:49 -0700
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:36:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>
Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
   gdr@integrable-solutions.net, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de,
   s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
Message-ID: <20030804103449.B25321@synopsys.com>
References: <20030804172640.AB3C6F2D85@nile.gnat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20030804172640.AB3C6F2D85@nile.gnat.com>; from dewar@gnat.com on Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:26:40PM -0400
X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:26:40PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Sigh.  In C++, the programmer has already done the needed analysis, and
> > has attached the keyword "inline" or defined the function in the class
> > body.  Certainly, with -O3 the kind of analysis you describe would be
> > appropriate, though possibly expensive.
> 
> 
> This claim is made repeatedly, but without any evidence.

OK, so let's gather some evidence now.