| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2009-11-30 14:16:48 |
| Message-ID: | 200911301416.nAUEGm821860@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2009-11-30 at 07:06 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I thought one problem was that inline is a suggestion that the compiler
> > can ignore, while macros have to be implemented as specified.
>
> Sure, but one could argue that a compiler that doesn't support inline
> usefully is probably not the sort of compiler that you use for compiling
> performance-relevant software anyway. We can support such systems in a
> degraded way for historical value and evaluation purposes as long as
> it's pretty much free, like we support systems without working int8.
The issue is that many compilers will take "inline" as a suggestion and
decide if it is worth-while to inline it --- I don't think it is inlined
unconditionally by any modern compilers.
Right now we think we are better at deciding what should be inlined than
the compiler --- of course, we might be wrong, and it would be good to
performance test this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-30 15:07:24 | Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-30 14:03:21 | Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions |