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
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 |