From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-79946-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2179 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2003 14:23:29 -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 2143 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 14:23:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 14:23:29 -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 h6TENGSu014509;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:23:16 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6TENFXX014508;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:23:15 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: std::pow implementation
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307291353040.14031-100000@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
	<m3he55tu7y.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<1059481647.3651.120.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
	<m3wue1se52.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<1059483328.3651.144.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
	<m34r15scu3.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<1059487859.3650.208.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <1059487859.3650.208.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3vftlo1ik.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01996.txt.bz2

Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:

| So what are you suggesting?  Are you saying that inlining limits are
| there for _no_ good reason,

I'm not saying those numbers were put there for no reason.
Whether those reasons are good or bad is a matter of debate.

| are you going to claim that "inline" should
| just mean "inline no matter what"?  

I'm claiming that inline should be given its original and obvious meaning.
Of course, you can construct examples where it is difficult or
impossible to inline.  But for simple cases, inline should mean just that.
std::string::end() is an example.

| Now, the one point you do have is that the limit is arbitrary and in

Perhaps, if you dare to focus on the message not on the medium you'll
see more than that.  If you just focus on the medium, you'll miss the
point. 

-- Gaby