Re: [HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

Hi Kevin,


On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard
> with a static inline function declaration in executor.h?

Presumably because it was written long before we started relying on
inline functions :/


> /*
>  * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement;
>  * now it's just a macro invoking the function pointed to by an ExprState
>  * node.  Beware of double evaluation of the ExprState argument!
>  */
> #define ExecEvalExpr(expr, econtext, isNull) \
>     ((*(expr)->evalfunc) (expr, econtext, isNull))
> 
> Should I change that to a static inline function doing exactly what
> the macro does?  In the absence of multiple evaluations of a
> parameter with side effects, modern versions of gcc have generated
> the same code for a macro versus a static inline function, at least
> in the cases I checked.

I'm absolutely not against changing this to an inline function, but I'd
prefer if that code weren't touched quite right now, there's a large
pending patch of mine in the area.  If you don't mind, I'll just include
the change there, rather than have a conflict?

Greetings,

Andres Freund