| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions |
| Date: | 2010-01-17 23:22:27 |
| Message-ID: | 13852.1263770547@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I have found an Autoconf macro that checks whether the compiler properly
> supports C99 inline semantics. This would allow us to replace the
> __GNUC__ conditional with HAVE_C99_INLINE, in this case. Interestingly,
> however, this check results in GCC <=4.2 *not* supporting C99 inline,
> apparently because it produces redundant copies of static inline
> functions. But GCC 4.2 is currently Debian stable, for example, so
> de-supporting that is probably not yet an option.
Some of us are using much older gcc's than that, too ;-). But actually
I think this test is 100% bogus anyhow. What it appears to rely on is
the compiler failing to do semantic error testing on an inline function
that it doesn't need to instantiate. That's a behavior that I'm pretty
sure is gcc-specific rather than required by C99, and in any case has
very little to do with our requirements.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-17 23:25:34 | Re: parallel regression test output |
| Previous Message | David Blewett | 2010-01-17 22:15:47 | Re: plpython3 |