From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12039 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2003 13:05:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12032 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 13:05:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 13:05:21 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6TD59Su014029; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:05:09 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6TD585w014028; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:05:08 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Steven Bosscher Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <1059481647.3651.120.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> <1059483328.3651.144.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <1059483328.3651.144.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01984.txt.bz2 Steven Bosscher writes: | > There are reasons I didn't declare __cmath_power inline in the first place. | > That is why I asked for data and ways to reproduce them. | | What are those reasons? Clearly it helps to add the inline keyword. | Something in the standard??? | | > | Now cut away all the redundant labels and other cruft, and you end up | > | with: | > | > In short, you have demonstrated that if "inline" is given its obvious | > meaning, the compiler can do a better job. That is what I claimed in | > the first place. | | No, I've shown that inline still has a meaning in GCC whereas you | claimed that "it was decided that the compiler knows better than the | programmer", i.e. the compiler overrules the user. And what I claimed corresponds to reality. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-05/msg00014.html for *facts* from mainline. The compiler has decided it can ignore inline when its counting of something has reached some limits, i.e. he knows better than the programmer. | What I've shown is that the compiler can take a hint. No, you've shown that on a branch development, the compiler appears to give "inline" its obvious meaning. | If you look at the tree inliner, it still honours the inline keyword, I know how the tree inliner is treating the inline keyword. It honours the keyword only when it thinks that matches its own view. -- Gaby