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

On 12/16/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE
> > would turn "static inline" into plain "static", so hypothetically
> > they would get some warnings about unused functions.
>
> > As this is all hypothetical, I don't see why that should stop us
> > cleaning our code?
>
> There's nothing "hypothetical" about it --- I still regularly check
> that the code builds on an old HP compiler that doesn't have inline.

Ok, good. Thus far only argument was "historically they have existed",
which does not sound good enough worry about them. If somebody is
actually testing and caring abouth such compilers, they need to be
taken more seriously.

> I remind you that the project policy is to not require any compiler
> features not found in C89. If you can exploit inline on more compilers
> than now, fine, but assuming that everything has got it is not OK.

Note - my advanced proposal (instead duplicate macros, let 'static inline'
functions fall back to being plain 'static') would still support
non-inline compilers, but with potentially small performance hit.

So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to "second-class"
targets, not worth getting max performance out of them.

Is this OK?

--
marko