Mathinlines and GCC

[Andreas Jaeger]

On 05/02/2012 09:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
>> So, for me the questions is: Shouldn't we cleanup the mathinline headers
>> and remove whatever functions a GCC of our choice (I would use the last
>> released one - 4.7) can optimize? Most inlines are only for GCC and if
>> GCC knows about it, it can do a better job.
>
> Normally we condition inlines so that they are disabled for the particular
> GCC versions that can do the optimization themselves.  (But instead of
> adding new ones we should certainly look to add GCC optimizations instead
> in most cases.)

I don't see any of this in the x86-64 specific version. On the other 
hand I see it in the i386 specific header.

One more question:  why do we explicitely call the builtin via an inline 
instead of letting gcc do this?

here's an example from the i386 header:
#if __GNUC_PREREQ (3, 4)
__inline_mathcodeNP2_ (long double, __atan2l, __y, __x,
		       return __builtin_atan2l (__y, __x))

Andreas
-- 
  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126