Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Boy, I'd be pretty darn hesitant to go there, even with our new
>> expectation of C99 compilers. What we found out when we last experimented
>> with non-static inlines was that the semantics were not very portable nor
>> desirable. I've forgotten the details unfortunately.
> My original approach to inlining was to alter the nbtsearch.c
> _bt_compare() callers (the majority) to call _bt_compare_inl(). This
> function matches our current _bt_compare() function, except it's a
> static inline. A "new" function, _bt_compare(), is also added. That's a
> shim function that simply calls _bt_compare_inl().
Yeah, that's pretty much the approach we concluded was necessary
for portable results.
regards, tom lane
