Re: Candidate for local inline function?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard
>> with a static inline function declaration in executor.h?
>
> Presumably because it was written long before we started relying on
> inline functions :/

Right. git blame says it was changed in 2004.

>> /*
>> * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement;
>> * now it's just a macro invoking the function pointed to by an ExprState
>> * node. Beware of double evaluation of the ExprState argument!
>> */
>> #define ExecEvalExpr(expr, econtext, isNull) \
>> ((*(expr)->evalfunc) (expr, econtext, isNull))
>>
>> Should I change that to a static inline function doing exactly what
>> the macro does? In the absence of multiple evaluations of a
>> parameter with side effects, modern versions of gcc have generated
>> the same code for a macro versus a static inline function, at least
>> in the cases I checked.
>
> I'm absolutely not against changing this to an inline function, but I'd
> prefer if that code weren't touched quite right now, there's a large
> pending patch of mine in the area. If you don't mind, I'll just include
> the change there, rather than have a conflict?

Fine with me.

--
Kevin Grittner