| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 04/16] Add embedded list interface (header only) |
| Date: | 2012-06-22 00:32:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_UO9u-7z8Nk=jw1ieZdcNNgFWmLd-izHs=BfrPUH0zqxA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 June 2012 01:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This is nonsense. There are at least three buildfarm machines running
> compilers that do not "pretend to be gcc" (at least, configure
> recognizes them as not gcc) and are not MSVC either.
So those three don't have medium to high degrees of compatibility with GCC?
> We ought to have more IMO, because software monocultures are dangerous. Of
> those three, two pass the "quiet inline" test and one --- the newest of the three
> if I guess correctly --- does not. So it is not the case that
> !USE_INLINE is dead code, even if you adopt the position that we don't
> care about any compiler not represented in the buildfarm.
I note that you said that it doesn't pass the "quiet inline" test, and
not that it doesn't support inline functions.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-06-22 00:32:14 | Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-22 00:04:02 | Re: [PATCH 04/16] Add embedded list interface (header only) |