On 12/16/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: > > > So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to "second-class" > > targets, not worth getting max performance out of them. > > > Hm? Failing to inline is already a performance hit, which is why > Kurt got interested in this in the first place. > > I think you're way overthinking this. Where we started was just > a proposal to try to expand the set of inline-ing compilers beyond > "gcc only". I don't see why we need to do anything but that. The > code is fine as-is except for the control #ifdefs.
My proposal is basically about allowing more widespread use of "static inline". That is - "static inline" does not need to be paired with equivalent macro. But if C89 compilers are still project's primary target, then this cannot be allowed. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
