Обсуждение: [PATCH] fix for C4141 warning on MSVC

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Michail Nikolaev
<michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just very small fix for C4141 warning
> (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/error-messages/compiler-warnings/compiler-warning-level-1-c4141).
>
> Also could be viewed on Github -
> https://github.com/michail-nikolaev/postgres/commit/38a590a00110a4ea870d625470e4c898e5ad79aa
>
> Tested both MSVC and gcc builds.

Thanks.  This is similar to the fix I proposed over here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D2iTKvbebiK3CdoczQk4_FfDt1EeU4c%2BnGE340JH7gQ0g%40mail.gmail.com

Two differences:

1.  I also fixed a warning from antique GCC which didn't understand this magic.
2.  You also defined it as plain old "inline" for unknown compilers.

Perhaps we should combine these?

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Michail Nikolaev
> <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just very small fix for C4141 warning

> Thanks.  This is similar to the fix I proposed over here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D2iTKvbebiK3CdoczQk4_FfDt1EeU4c%2BnGE340JH7gQ0g%40mail.gmail.com

> Perhaps we should combine these?

+1.  The previous thread seems to have died off with nothing happening,
but we still have those issues to resolve.  I like the idea of making
the macro be a direct drop-in substitute for "inline" rather than
something you use in addition to "inline".  And if we do that, it
definitely should expand to plain "inline" if we have no other idea.

            regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Michail Nikolaev
>> <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just very small fix for C4141 warning
>
>> Thanks.  This is similar to the fix I proposed over here:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D2iTKvbebiK3CdoczQk4_FfDt1EeU4c%2BnGE340JH7gQ0g%40mail.gmail.com
>
>> Perhaps we should combine these?
>
> +1.  The previous thread seems to have died off with nothing happening,
> but we still have those issues to resolve.  I like the idea of making
> the macro be a direct drop-in substitute for "inline" rather than
> something you use in addition to "inline".  And if we do that, it
> definitely should expand to plain "inline" if we have no other idea.

Here's one like that.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Here's one like that.

Pushed; we'll soon see if the buildfarm likes it.  I added a tweak to
prevent forced inlining at -O0, as discussed in the other thread;
and worked on the comments a bit.

            regards, tom lane