Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date: 2015-08-04 19:45:44
Message-ID: 15089.1438717544@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-08-04 15:20:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, so do we want to rip out all instances of the static inline dance
>> in favor of more straightforward coding? Do we then shut pandemelon
>> and any other affected buildfarm members down as unsupported, or what?

> I think all that happens is that they'll log a couple more warnings
> about defined but unused static functions. configure already defines
> inline away if not supported.

Right. We had already concluded that this would be safe to do, it's
just a matter of somebody being motivated to do it.

I'm not sure that there's any great urgency about changing the instances
that exist now; the real point of this discussion is that we will allow
new code to use static inlines in headers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-08-04 19:55:41 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-08-04 19:41:34 Re: More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching