[HACKERS] UnixWare 7.1.3 (BETA), C99 compiler, current CVS, error...
Without specifying the -Xb switch to kill the C99 interpretation of inline, I get the following from current CVS: UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1854: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1856: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1870: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1872: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1885: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1897: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] UnixWare 7.1.3 (BETA), C99 compiler, current CVS, error...
Larry Rosenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Without specifying the -Xb switch to kill the C99 interpretation of inline, I get the following from current CVS: UX:acomp: ERROR: tuplesort.c, line 1854: inline functions cannot use static identifier: myFunctionCall2 I don't understand what it's unhappy about. My C99 draft sez [#6] Any function with internal linkage can be an inline function. so the text of the message is surely not what they are really complaining about? Or is the compiler broken? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] UnixWare 7.1.3 (BETA), C99 compiler, current CVS, error...
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
