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

On 12/2/09, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> I seem to remember that when the Win32 version became available it actually
> increased the
> number of people trying postgres rather dramatically. Did that count for
> nothing?

The "(gcc)" above meant the inline functions are already used with gcc.

I have no reason to think Microsoft's inlining works worse than gcc's.

IOW - if the compiler does not support 'static inline' we should fall back
to plain 'static' functions, instead maintaining duplicate macros.
Such compilers would take a efficiency hit, but as they are practically
non-existent they dont matter.

Microsoft C does support inline, so it would not be affected.

--
marko