Re: std::pow implementation

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>]

Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> When I say "inline", I mean inline, regardless of other opinions 
>> (including those of the compiler).
> 
> Really? And when you say "register" do you really mean that?  If so,
> then I'm sorry, but you are in for a big disappointment when using
> gcc -- it completely ignores the register keyword when optimizing and
> has done since ~forever.

Yes -- but as others have pointed out, automatic register allocation is
a well-defined discipline that has proven itself. I have seen much
evidence (including the original basis for this thread) that automatic
inliners are still primitive.

One root of this dicussion is differences in definitions (and 
expectations) between C, Ada, and C++.

> I've already given examples of when the compiler can make use of
> context to give better inlining than can be determined statically.
> Your "arrogant" assertion that inline must always and unconditionally
> mean inline impliess that programmers can never take advantage of
> those cases.

No; I imply that a C++ compiler should do as it's told, and explain 
itself when it makes a contrary decision. I don't doubt that the 
compiler can find optimizations that are beyond my analysis; I also know 
compilers can (and do) generate bad code.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing