From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31992 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 18:19:37 -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 31985 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 18:19:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 18:19:36 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 901B3F2D85; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:19:36 -0400 (EDT) To: dewar@gnat.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: std::pow implementation Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jbuck@synopsys.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Message-Id: <20030804181936.901B3F2D85@nile.gnat.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:22:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 > It is an "as-if" rule only because that is the way it is described in > standardese. In the C++ community, we do care about history and > documented behaviour. You won't change that, just because you want > C++ inline to have a less language specific meaning. It's the only possibloe description in standardese here. The point is that appealing to the ISO standard (as you did a few msgs ago) is not particularly helpful, since the standard really has nothing to say. This is a matter that must be decided, as with any code generation issue, on the basis of what is pragnmatically best.