On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-11-19 10:37:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> > The only animal we have that doesn't support quiet inlines today is >> > HP-UX/ac++, and I think - as in patch 1 in the series - we might be able >> > to simply suppress the warning there. >> >> Or just not worry about it, if it's only a warning? > > So, my suggestion on that end is that we remove the requirement for > quiet inline now and see if it that has any negative consequences on the > buildfarm for a week or so. Imo that's a good idea regardless of us > relying on inlining support. > Does anyone have anything against that plan? If not, I'll prepare a > patch. > >> Or does the warning >> mean code bloat (lots of useless copies of the inline function)? > > After thinking on that for a bit, yes that's a possible consequence, but > it's quite possible that it happens in cases where we don't get the > warning too, so I don't think that argument has too much bearing as I > don't recall a complaint about it.
But I bet the warning we're getting there is complaining about exactly that thing. It's possible that it means "warning: i've optimized away your unused function into nothing" but I think it's more likely that it means "warning: i just emitted dead code". Indeed, I suspect that this is why that test is written that way in the first place. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers