Hi, On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson@intel.com> wrote:
I vote we leave the pow template alone, since it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. (Yes I know my vote doesn't count.)
Runtime-wise, it may be fine, yes.
The gain is in going from O(N) template instantiations to O(log N), which helps at compile-time.
Even at runtime I don't really agree since the solution proposed here was the one I had originally proposed. And when Joaquin corrected it by proposing something that better optimizes the number of multiplications, my tests shew that the gain at runtime was real and that my compiler didn't do that by itself. This being said, I should redo my tests to be sure I didn't miss anything. Anyway, I think all this is a matter of compiler and the best way is to take compiler's hand to force it to write the right code, even for those compilers that would have been able to do it by themselves. Luke, which compiler to you use? Bruno