On 12/16/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to "second-class"
> > targets, not worth getting max performance out of them.
>
>
> Hm? Failing to inline is already a performance hit, which is why
> Kurt got interested in this in the first place.
>
> I think you're way overthinking this. Where we started was just
> a proposal to try to expand the set of inline-ing compilers beyond
> "gcc only". I don't see why we need to do anything but that. The
> code is fine as-is except for the control #ifdefs.
My proposal is basically about allowing more widespread use of
"static inline". That is - "static inline" does not need to be
paired with equivalent macro.
But if C89 compilers are still project's primary target, then this
cannot be allowed.
--
marko
