From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-80157-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7083 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 15:53:18 -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 6708 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout03.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.81)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0000
Received: from fwd11.aul.t-online.de 
	by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp 
	id 19htG9-00014c-03; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:53:01 +0200
Received: from kolme (rXl-zeZvZe0gatLSEM9yiOeW55ydUxfdfheGWDkXqh2jk+r6wVc86x@[80.138.148.130]) by fmrl11.sul.t-online.com
	with esmtp id 19htG1-0aRFp20; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:52:53 +0200
Received: from goofy.hamnixda.de ([192.168.100.249] helo=goofy)
	by kolme with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 19htFy-0000YH-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:52:50 +0200
Received: from richard (helo=localhost)
	by goofy with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 19htG0-0000Wv-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:52:52 +0200
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:17:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
cc: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>, 
    Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>, 
    Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>, 
    Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>,  <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
In-Reply-To: <m3he5410lv.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307301751060.561-100000@goofy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Seen: false
X-ID: rXl-zeZvZe0gatLSEM9yiOeW55ydUxfdfheGWDkXqh2jk+r6wVc86x@t-dialin.net
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02207.txt.bz2

On 30 Jul 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:
>
> | > IMNSHO, the keyword "inline" means precisely what it says: to inline the
> | > code for a given function, if possible.
> |
> | Richard Guenther's experience with this meaning for "inline" are not
> | that positive: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg02140.html.
>
> It is no surprise that inlinig with no proper constant propagation and
> dead code elimination does not produce better code.

I think this statement is way too harsh, as cprop and dce are quite good
with gcc - apart from some special cases such as your std::pow(T, int)
implementation (for which we need to blame the loop unroller, not cprop
or dce).

Richard.