Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> so the text of the message is surely not what they are really >> complaining about? Or is the compiler broken? > I'll ask, it is Beta (although the Compiler has done this since the C99 > functionality was added, and it causes a LOT of open source stuff to > require -Xb).
After reading a little further, it seems that the brain damage is in the standard, not the compiler :-(. It looks like C99's notion of a function that is both global and inline is that you must provide *two* definitions of the function, one marked inline and one not; moreover, these must appear in separate translation units. What in the world were those people smoking? That's a recipe for maintenance problems (edit one definition, forget to edit the other), not to mention completely at variance with the de facto standard behavior of inline that's been around for a long time. My inclination is to change the code for ApplySortFunction to look like #if defined(__GNUC__) __inline__ #endif int32 ApplySortFunction so that the inline optimization only gets done for gcc, which we know interprets inline sanely. Anyone see a better answer? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org