[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: md5 broken?
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: md5 broken? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 May 2011 12:12:19 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 |
On 05/28/11 09:55, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> "Builds" is not enough. We also want to assure that every compiler
> that supports inline functions really sees the inline keyword there.
No, "#define inline /* empty */" is a perfectly adequate workaround.
This is the standard workaround on typical older hosts, and it
doesn't break anything, as the C Standard allows compilers to
ignore 'inline' entirely (on static functions, anyway, which is
what we're talking about here).
>> > so it does appear that it works with all supported builds.
> There's also the Windows build, which still supports non-GCC
> compilers.
Evidently it's not a significant problem with Windows, since it's been
in use for over a month without complaint. If there turns
out to be a problem with some rarely-used ancient Windows compiler,
the Windows configuration file can just add a
"#define inline /* empty */" if that compiler is in use.
- md5 broken?, Antoine Levitt, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Jim Meyering, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Antoine Levitt, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Jim Meyering, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/28
- Re: md5 broken?,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: md5 broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/28
- INLINE -> inline (was: md5 broken?), Paul Eggert, 2011/05/28
- Re: INLINE -> inline (was: md5 broken?), Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/29
- Re: INLINE -> inline, Jim Meyering, 2011/05/29
- Re: md5 broken?, Ken Raeburn, 2011/05/29
- Re: md5 broken?, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/30
- Re: md5 broken?, Ken Raeburn, 2011/05/31