On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> > (although it would surely be nice).
> inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
> Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even
if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline
support is realistic.
I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win
by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with
multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: