From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-80113-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19152 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 13:53:05 -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 18786 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 13:52:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout10.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.21)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 13:52:51 -0000
Received: from fwd03.aul.t-online.de 
	by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp 
	id 19hrNm-0007v7-09; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:52:46 +0200
Received: from kolme (Z6mDfUZHZeEUqwoq-pQQsmntKdcDk2+1A-wAxeRfI8kpnQqn-kUd4Z@[80.138.148.130]) by fmrl03.sul.t-online.com
	with esmtp id 19hrNZ-15UPDs0; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:52:33 +0200
Received: from goofy.hamnixda.de ([192.168.100.249] helo=goofy)
	by kolme with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 19hrNV-0000Vr-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:52:29 +0200
Received: from richard (helo=localhost)
	by goofy with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 19hrNY-0000NF-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:52:32 +0200
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:04:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>
cc: aoliva@redhat.com,  <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>,  <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 
     <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
In-Reply-To: <20030730134614.2C021F2DFE@nile.gnat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307301551300.561-100000@goofy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Seen: false
X-ID: Z6mDfUZHZeEUqwoq-pQQsmntKdcDk2+1A-wAxeRfI8kpnQqn-kUd4Z@t-dialin.net
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02163.txt.bz2

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Robert Dewar wrote:

> > Defining a function inline is not a careless action.  If inlining
> > isn't profitable, the programmer will profile et remove the inline
> > definition.  You don't know better than the programmer.
>
> This is often incorrect, because often code is written to be portable, and
> the decision on what is profitable to inline is target dependent. Furthermore
> deciding whether something is profitable to inline on a given target requires
> detailed knowledge of the target architecture, knowledge that very few
> programmers have these days.

Also portability is not only about different targets, but also about
different compilers! Declaring something inline for one compiler doesnt
necessary have the same desired semantics for inline for another one.

Richard.