From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6496 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 18:27:38 -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 6489 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 18:27:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 18:27:37 -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 h74IQvSu023692; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:26:57 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h74IQuBS023691; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:26:56 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jbuck@synopsys.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <20030804181936.901B3F2D85@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030804181936.901B3F2D85@nile.gnat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: | > It is an "as-if" rule only because that is the way it is described in | > standardese. In the C++ community, we do care about history and | > documented behaviour. You won't change that, just because you want | > C++ inline to have a less language specific meaning. | | It's the only possibloe description in standardese here. | | The point is that appealing to the ISO standard (as you did a few msgs ago) | is not particularly helpful, since the standard really has nothing to say. I did appeal to two sources: both the ISO standard and "The Design and Evolution of C++". I included the ISO standard definition because it gives the wording on the current C++ definition and it is the result long elaboration on wordings that took many resources, just to make sure that thee substitution meaning is conveyed. I did also appeal to the D&E because it does give references to the raison d'etre of inline in C++. You might choose to ignore that C++ is an "evolved" language and ignore its history, but that is a not mistake I would like GCC to make. C++ simply is not Ada. | This is a matter that must be decided, as with any code generation issue, | on the basis of what is pragnmatically best. This is matter of providing what has always been documented for two decades. -- Gaby