From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23502 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 12:47:11 -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 23492 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 12:47:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 12:47:10 -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 h6UCkNSu021390; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:46:23 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6UCkMnc021389; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:46:22 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Steven Bosscher Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Alexandre Oliva , Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <200307301037.h6UAb3P18424@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <1059565099.3642.9.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> <1059566334.3640.19.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> <1059568383.3640.46.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <1059568383.3640.46.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02142.txt.bz2 Steven Bosscher writes: | Op wo 30-07-2003, om 14:10 schreef Gabriel Dos Reis: | > Steven Bosscher writes: | > | > It suffices to point out that (defunct) KCC did outperform GCC on most | > | > real world code. | > | | > | Then you must be glad, I'm sure, that you're going to contribute a | > | serious improvement to G++ :-) | > | > I'm taking this issue seriously in case you have some doubt. | | I don't doubt it all. You're obviously very passionate about this. I distinguish between being serious and being passionate. The later does not require argumentation. | > You (steven Bosscher) are trying to turn it into a flame war, to have | > an excuse to ignore the issue. Sigh. | | I'm not trying to turn anything into a flame war, I beg to be doubtful given the number of times you attempted to side track the discussion. [...] | You keep saying ``Please do give "inline" its original meaning'', but | apparently the people who you're asking to do so disagree with your | ideas and therfore are probably not going to do it. They disagreed with me and the reasons they gave were most (all?) unfounded ranging from bogus quotes to the standard to assuming that the programmer's use of "inline" is most of the time nonsensible. [...] | Heck, who can tell wether you're right or wrong!? I don't think you are | right, but I can't prove that. So all I ask is that if you are | convinced you're right, you should try to prove it. Please, refrain from putting words in my month. (Did you say you're not attempting to turn this into a flame war?) -- Gaby