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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
Date: 2009-11-29 21:46:29
Message-ID: 7688.1259531189@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> (Does anybody still use a C compiler that doesn't support
> inline functions?)

The question isn't so much that, it's whether the compiler supports
inline functions with the same behavior as gcc.  At minimum that
would require
	* not generating extra copies of the function
	* not whining about unreferenced static functions
How many compilers have you tested this patch against?  Which ones
does it actually offer any benefit for?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua TolleyDate: 2009-11-29 22:29:08
Subject: Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft
Previous:From: Brendan JurdDate: 2009-11-29 21:38:52
Subject: Re: cvs chapters in our docs

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