| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
| Date: | 2002-10-08 21:41:41 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0210082101500.928-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway writes:
> Well, one alternative might be to provide 2 definitions of the
> function -- one an extern inline in the header file, and one using the
> current method (in a separate file, non-inline). Then wrap the header
> file in an #ifdef __GNUC__ block, and the non-inlined version in
> #ifndef __GNUC__.
External inline functions aren't even portable across different versions
of GCC. It's best not to go there at all.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-08 21:42:18 | Re: v7.2.3 - tag'd, packaged ... need it checked ... |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-08 21:41:24 | Re: inline newNode() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2002-10-08 22:34:52 | Re: Bug #794: JDBC 7.3 PreparedStatement.setNull(..) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-08 21:41:24 | Re: inline newNode() |