From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-79922-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14076 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2003 12:37:10 -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 14047 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 12:37:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 12:37:10 -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 h6TCavSu013881;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:36:58 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6TCavmn013880;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:36:57 +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>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <1059481647.3651.120.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3wue1se52.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01972.txt.bz2

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

| Can you stop bashing and be reasonable for once?

I'm reasonable.  Being reasonable does not imply not recognizing that
the original meaning of "inline" has been transmuted.

| If you were so great you would have declated __cmath_power inline in
| the first place. 

Did I claim I am "great" or "so great"?  
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.

[...]

| 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.

-- Gaby