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

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