Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions

On 12/16/09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> >> Your worry ii) can be ignored, managing to compile on such
> >> compilers is already overachievement.
> >
> > I think so too. With your opinion added to mine, do we constitute a
> > consensus of the pg community? Someone might object that a sample of
> > two individuals is insufficiently representative of the whole, but
> > away with the pedants: let us not quibble over trifles.
>
>
> I haven't completely followed this thread, but I think there has been
> some discussion of making changes to inline that would cause
> regressions for people using old, crappy compilers, and I think we
> should avoid doing that unless there is some compelling benefit. I'm
> not sure what that benefit would be - I don't think "cleaner code" is
> enough.

Seems you have not followed the thread...

Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE
would turn "static inline" into plain "static", so hypothetically
they would get some warnings about unused functions.

As this is all hypothetical, I don't see why that should stop us
cleaning our code?

--
marko