Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On 11/19/13, 9:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. Now that I think about it, isn't Peter proposing to break systems
>> without working "inline" over here?
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1384257026.8059.5.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
> No, that's about const, volatile, #, and memcmp.
Ah, sorry, not enough caffeine absorbed yet. Still, we should stop
to think about whether this represents an undesirable move of the
portability goalposts. The first three of these are certainly
compiler issues, and I personally don't have a problem with blowing
off compilers that still haven't managed to implement all of C89 :-(.
I'm not clear on which systems had the memcmp issue --- do we have
the full story on that?
> I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> (although it would surely be nice).
inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
