Re: std::pow implementation

[Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

On 30 Jul 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
> | > | The only sane possible semantics I see are:
> | > |
> | > | 1. inline declared functions are inlined always if technically possible
> | > | 2. the inline keyword has no effect
> | > | 3. inline is handled in an implementation defined manner (as stated in the
> | > |    standard), maybe by adjusting the set of functions considered for inlining,
> | > |    as gcc does.
> | >
> | > I'm arguing for #1 and #3 combined.  Meaning, inline simple functions
> | > at low optimization level, try hard at higher level + compiler
> | > parameter adjustement.
> |
> | Thats what we have now - generally we go with #3, for small functions we
> | go with #1 (tune what is small with --param min-inline-insns=XXX).
>
> What I'm arguing for is not what have.  For example, something like
> 'std::string() const' does not need fiddling with --param -- that is,
> its inlining should not depend on the context of use.

Its inlining doesnt depend on the context of use if it is small enough. Of
course now we are at the point where the compiler needs to decide how
large a function is - and this area vastly improved a few weeks ago. If
this is still not your point you need to start defining what a "small"
function is. Apart from being a function whose inlining is profitable, of
course ;)

Richard.