Re: md5 broken?

[Ken Raeburn]

On May 28, 2011, at 12:09, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 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'.)

My understanding is that the traditional GCC and C99 interpretations for 
"inline" and "extern inline" are basically reversed.  So "inline" is just as 
much a problem as "extern inline" -- although we seem to have been getting away 
with "inline" for a while in intervals.c and elsewhere (unless we're defining 
it away on more platforms than I would hope necessary).  Even so, I generally 
consider "static inline" to be the only safe form, unless you want to jump 
through hoops to figure out or force the interpretation of "inline" or "extern 
inline" with your particular compiler.

Ken