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

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

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2009-11-30 at 07:06 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I thought one problem was that inline is a suggestion that the compiler
> > can ignore, while macros have to be implemented as specified.
> 
> Sure, but one could argue that a compiler that doesn't support inline
> usefully is probably not the sort of compiler that you use for compiling
> performance-relevant software anyway.  We can support such systems in a
> degraded way for historical value and evaluation purposes as long as
> it's pretty much free, like we support systems without working int8.

The issue is that many compilers will take "inline" as a suggestion and
decide if it is worth-while to inline it --- I don't think it is inlined
unconditionally by any modern compilers.

Right now we think we are better at deciding what should be inlined than
the compiler --- of course, we might be wrong, and it would be good to
performance test this.

-- 
  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. +