Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] [libpq] rework sigpipe-handling macros

From: Jeremy Kerr <jk(at)ozlabs(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] [libpq] rework sigpipe-handling macros
Date: 2009-07-20 00:00:52
Message-ID: 200907201000.53416.jk@ozlabs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Robert,

> Perhaps we should use macros.

I was trying to avoid macros, as this means we lose type- and syntax-
checking at the call-site, and end up with slightly messier code.
However, I understand that this is probably personal preference for me
:)

How about just 'static' functions? (ie, drop the 'inline'). This way,
the compiler is free to inline where suitable, and non-inlining
compilers will do the right thing too.

However, I'd rather make decisions on data, rather than guessing. Is the
actual problem here that some compilers just don't support the 'inline'
keyword?

Cheers,

Jeremy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-07-20 00:37:25 Re: make check failure for 8.4.0
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-07-19 23:43:06 Re: [PATCH] SE-PgSQL/tiny rev.2193