Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: intrinsic functions, math operators (was: i++, i+=1, i=i+1) Message-ID: <3957@lanl.gov> Date: 21 Sep 88 19:02:30 GMT References: <1028@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 21 From article <1028@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, by fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov.nas.nasa.gov (Marty Fouts): > which ANSI committee you are refering to (C?) The proposal is *not* > for intrinsic functions, but for required library functions. > Implementation left to the implementer. Look again. There are a number of functions which the committee says the processor is allowed to optimize or expand in-line. The rationale document recommends that the in-line expansion be passed to the processor as a macro in one of the default includes - but (as far as I know) this is not the _required_ way of in-line expansion. Furthermore, if implementation were left to the implementor, _many_ functions would be implemented by the compiler - they're easier to do that way (if you really want them to be optimized). If I were writing a C compiler, I would certainly do pow() in-line. What you claim is that the ANSI C committee is listing a group of required functions and that these are _required_ to be implemented in a library form. I don't think this is true. J. Giles Los Alamos