On 9/25/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> > Gevik Babakhani napsal(a):
> >> I have not investigated this yet. But I am very interested to know what the
> >> advantages would be to "upgrade" the code to C99 standards.
> > I think replace macros with inline functions. It brings to ability to
> > monitor them for example by DTrace.
> C99's definition of inline functions really sucks --- it's awkward to
> use, and essentially doesn't work at all for declaring inlines in header
> files, which would be the main use if we wanted to replace macros with
> inlines. I'm much happier using gcc's version of inline where we really
> need it (which is not that many places anyway).
AFAIK the problem was only with 'extern inline' which is different,
the 'static inline' which is the main replacement for macros,
should behave same?
+1 for C99
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-09-25 13:23:22|
|Subject: Re: Add default_val to pg_settings|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-09-25 13:15:29|
|Subject: Re: Add default_val to pg_settings |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Louis-David Mitterrand||Date: 2008-09-25 14:13:31|
|Subject: group by error message?|
|Previous:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2008-09-25 13:04:04|
|Subject: Re: namespace in pgsql|