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

On 12/16/09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman <harriman@acm.org> wrote:
>  >> Your worry ii) can be ignored, managing to compile on such
>  >> compilers is already overachievement.
>  >
>  > I think so too.  With your opinion added to mine, do we constitute a
>  > consensus of the pg community?  Someone might object that a sample of
>  > two individuals is insufficiently representative of the whole, but
>  > away with the pedants: let us not quibble over trifles.
>
>
> I haven't completely followed this thread, but I think there has been
>  some discussion of making changes to inline that would cause
>  regressions for people using old, crappy compilers, and I think we
>  should avoid doing that unless there is some compelling benefit.  I'm
>  not sure what that benefit would be - I don't think "cleaner code" is
>  enough.

Seems you have not followed the thread...

Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE
would turn "static inline" into plain "static", so hypothetically
they would get some warnings about unused functions.

As this is all hypothetical, I don't see why that should stop us
cleaning our code?

-- 
marko