Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions

James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> writes:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
>> Note - my proposal would be to get rid of HAVE_INLINE, which
>> means we are already using inline functions unconditionally
>> on platforms that matter (gcc). Keeping duplicate code
>> for obsolete compilers is pointless.

> Microsoft C doesn't matter?

Breaking compilers that don't have inline at all isn't happening;
it wouldn't buy us anything much anyway. The debate here is about
how much we can assume about the behavior of compilers that do
recognize the keyword. In particular, do they behave sensibly
when finding an unreferenced static inline function, which is what
would occur in many modules if we allow them to see inline functions
in headers.

regards, tom lane