Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Headers dependencies cleanup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Headers dependencies cleanup
Date: 2008-04-08 02:22:26
Message-ID: 13665.1207621346@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
>> Not all compilers like (== support) inline macros apparently.

> Is it your assumption or do you mean some specific compiler? IIRC, inline is 
> defined in C99 and my assumption :-) is that it should be supported by all 
> compilers today.

The problem is (1) not all compilers support inline, (2) the ones that
do have divergent ideas on its semantics, and (3) the semantics
specified by C99 utterly suck (cf tuplesort.c).  gcc's traditional
semantics for inline are far more usable.  We have done "#ifdef gcc"
inlines in one or two places where the performance argument for adding
such clutter was compelling.  We can do that some more, but you'll need
equally compelling arguments.  Do not bother submitting patches to
create a very large number of inlines.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-04-08 05:11:24
Subject: Indexam API changes
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-04-08 01:46:55
Subject: explicit tracking of ActiveSnapshot

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group