Re: md5 broken?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 12:12:19 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> 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.

Not if wed want the result be a decent binary with reasonable
performance.  See bidi.c, for example.

> >> > 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.

Yeah, and guess who took care of that.

But you are missing the point.  I'm saying that we should have only
one of "INLINE" and "inline", not both.  I don't care much which one;
I only mentioned the former because it is used widely in Emacs and for
a long time.

Is there any reasons to keep both?