Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: intrinsic functions, math operators (was: i++, i+=1, i=i+1)
Message-ID: <1600@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 24 Sep 88 14:18:26 GMT
References: <1028@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <3957@lanl.gov> <596@convex.UUCP>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 19

In article <596@convex.UUCP>, dodson@mozart.uucp (Dave Dodson) writes:
> In article <3957@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> >If I were writing a C compiler, I would certainly do pow() in-line.

> Considering the complexity and length of a properly written pow()
> routine, it does not appear to me to be practical for the compiler to
> in-line it.

No, but there are certain cases of pow that can be handled in line, with
the rest passed off to the library routine:

	pow(floatvar, integer);
	pow(floatvar, constant), for certain constants.
	pow(constant, floatvar), for certain constants.

I'm sure Jim can come up with lots more...
-- 
Peter da Silva  `-_-'  Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
"Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?"            peter@ficc.uu.net