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