Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 19:55:41
Message-ID: 20150804195541.GF32119@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-04 15:45:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I agree that we don't have to (and probably shouldn't) make the required
configure changes and change definitions. But I do think some of the
current macro usage deserves to be cleaned up at some point. I,
somewhere during 9.4 or 9.5, redefined some of the larger macros into
static inlines and it both reduced the binary size and gave minor
performance benefits.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2015-08-04 20:04:29 Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-08-04 19:45:44 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6