From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-79911-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5313 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2003 11:45:34 -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 5301 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 11:45:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx01.uni-tuebingen.de) (134.2.3.11)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 11:45:32 -0000
Received: from bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.170.113])
	by mx01.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h6TBjV3a009879;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:45:31 +0200
Received: from bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6TBjUKA013074;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:45:30 +0200
Received: from localhost (rguenth@localhost)
	by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id h6TBjUpG013071;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:45:30 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de: rguenth owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:10:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
In-Reply-To: <m31xw9va0w.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307291340380.14031-100000@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.2; AVE 6.20.0.1; VDF 6.20.0.50
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01961.txt.bz2

On 29 Jul 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
> | Can such be done for 3.4 and possibly 3.3, too?
>
> This is mainly an inlining problem with the compiler.  Please fix the
> compiler, don't obfuscate the library.

cmath.tcc:std::__cmath_power is not even declared inline. So how do you
expect the compiler to optimize the very common std::pow(x, 2) without
-O3? And even with -O3 I cannot get gcc to optimize the simple

double foo(double x)
{
  std::pow(x, 2);
}

to something avoiding the call to std::__cmath_power. And I dont
expect inlining heuristics to consider constant arguments even for
tree-ssa in 3.5 timeframe.

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/