Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:52:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:05:45AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> pgace.h: you have a bunch of "static inline" functions in here. As far
>>>> as I know this doesn't work in compilers other than GCC :-(
>>> Really? C99 requires it and MSVC does support it.
>> Wrong. What C99 requires is a uselessly cumbersome form of "inline"
>> that is not compatible with the GCC feature. We did actually implement
>> C99-compatible inlines in one or two places (in the sorting code IIRC),
>> but it's not something that I want to put up with on a large scale.
>
> I was talking about "static inline", where C99 agrees completely with
> GCC and is significantly more portable.
As I noted yesterday, I have no preference between inline and real one.
However, I don't think it is a good idea to apply such an arguable manner
because of current v8.4 development schedule.
All patches are available here for a long time:
[1/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepostgresql-sepgsql-8.4devel-3-r1408.patch
[2/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepostgresql-utils-8.4devel-3-r1408.patch
[3/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepostgresql-policy-8.4devel-3-r1408.patch
[4/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepostgresql-docs-8.4devel-3-r1408.patch
[5/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepostgresql-tests-8.4devel-3-r1408.patch
I would like committer to begin their reviews.
If necessary, I can rework/update them with my highest priority.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>