| Subject: | Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro? |
|---|---|
| From: | Peter Eisentraut |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:36:02 +0300 |
| Newsgroups: | pgsql.hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > I considered that one, but since part of my argument is that inlining > this is a waste of code space, it seems like a better inlining > technology isn't really the answer. The compiler presumably has the intelligence and the command-line options to control how much inlining one wants to do. But without any size vs. performance measurements it is an idle discussion. Getting rid of a global variable and macro ugliness is a worthwhile goal of its own. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?, "Heikki Linnakangas" |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?, "Greg Stark" |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?, Tom Lane |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?, Tom Lane |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |