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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
Date: 2009-11-29 21:46:29
Message-ID: 7688.1259531189@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> (Does anybody still use a C compiler that doesn't support
> inline functions?)

The question isn't so much that, it's whether the compiler supports
inline functions with the same behavior as gcc. At minimum that
would require
* not generating extra copies of the function
* not whining about unreferenced static functions
How many compilers have you tested this patch against? Which ones
does it actually offer any benefit for?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Tolley 2009-11-29 22:29:08 Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-11-29 21:38:52 Re: cvs chapters in our docs