Re: md5 broken?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 09:09:58 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>, address@hidden, 
>  address@hidden
> 
> On 05/28/11 07:10, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > if it is decided to switch to "inline" everywhere, we
> > should make sure it works with all the supported builds, not only with
> > those that run `configure'.
> 
> Plain 'inline' has been in use for over a month,
> and it builds on MS-DOS (according to the log for
> bzr 104154)

"Builds" is not enough.  We also want to assure that every compiler
that supports inline functions really sees the inline keyword there.

> so it does appear that it works with all supported builds.

There's also the Windows build, which still supports non-GCC
compilers.

> The "extern inline" issue is that C99 has a different
> semantics for "extern inline" than GCC traditionally did.
> As long as we stay away from "extern inline" we shouldn't
> have to worry about that porting problem.  (This issue
> applies equally to 'inline' and to 'INLINE'.)

I don't mind using either one, but I think we only need to use one,
not both.  Using both is a maintenance headache.  That's all I'm
saying.