I wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Wonder if we should mark simplehash's grow as noinline? Even with a single
>> caller it seems better to not inline it to remove register allocator
>> pressure.
> Seems plausible --- you want me to go change that?
Hmm, harder than it sounds. If I remove "inline" from SH_SCOPE then
the compiler complains about unreferenced static functions, while
if I leave it there than adding pg_noinline causes a complaint about
conflicting options. Seems like we need a less quick-and-dirty
approach to dealing with unnecessary simplehash support functions.
regards, tom lane
