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

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.
        regards, tom lane