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

On ons, 2009-12-16 at 10:49 -0500, Tom Lane 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.

I think the ifdefs should just be HAVE_INLINE && !MSVC, right?