Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org>
- Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:46:29 -0500
- Message-id: <7688.1259531189@sss.pgh.pa.us> <text/plain>
Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org> writes: > (Does anybody still use a C compiler that doesn't support > inline functions?) The question isn't so much that, it's whether the compiler supports inline functions with the same behavior as gcc. At minimum that would require * not generating extra copies of the function * not whining about unreferenced static functions How many compilers have you tested this patch against? Which ones does it actually offer any benefit for? regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- From: Marko Kreen
- Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- References:
- Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- From: Kurt Harriman
- Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- Prev by Date: Re: cvs chapters in our docs
- Next by Date: Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft
- Previous by thread: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- Next by thread: Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
- Indexes: