From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5075 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 22:28:19 -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 5028 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 22:28:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 22:28:18 -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 h6UMRxSu025293; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:28:00 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6UMRwEj025292; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:27:58 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <20030730134614.2C021F2DFE@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02270.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva writes: | On Jul 30, 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > But the fact is that the compiler is not doing better by going its own | > programmed logic. We've not reached the same level of sophistication | > as for register allocation. | | And your solution for the problem is to dumb it down further such that | it doesn't even attempt to do a good job? I'm not proposing to dumb it further. In fact, people like you who make bogus quote of the standard to claim that inline is implicit in C++ have already push the compiler to its dumbest state. Their transmuting of "inline" does not leave room for going dumb further. In effect, I'm proposing to return to first principles where the C++ programmer is trusted, is listened to, not treated by the software as a dumb person unable to make sensible decisions. When, the programmed logic of your inliner will reach the sophisticated level comparable to that of automatic register allocation, then you will have evidence to have your software not to trust the programmer. But, *now*, we're far from that level. It is refusing acknowledgment of that simple fact that is driving the compiler straight into wall. -- Gaby