| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-04-08 05:11:24 | Indexam API changes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-08 01:46:55 | explicit tracking of ActiveSnapshot |