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

[Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>]

Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 11/29/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> >  > (Does anybody still use a C compiler that doesn't support
> >  > inline functions?)
> 
> +1 for modern C.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Those are not correctness problems.  Compilers with non-optimal or
> missing 'inline' do belong together with compilers without working int64.
> We may spend some effort to be able to compile on them, but they
> should not affect our coding style.
> 
> 'static inline' is superior to macros because of type-safety and
> side-effects avoidance.  I'd suggest event removing any HAVE_INLINE
> ifdefs and let autoconf undef the 'inline' if needed.  Less duplicated
> code to maintain.  The existence of compilers in active use without
> working 'inline' seems quite hypothetical these days.

I thought one problem was that inline is a suggestion that the compiler
can ignore, while macros have to be implemented as specified.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +