[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: md5 broken?
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: md5 broken? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 May 2011 15:32:50 +0200 |
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:23:43 +0200
>> Cc: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>>
>> +static inline unsigned char to_uchar (char ch) { return ch; }
>
> I think this should use "INLINE", upper-cased, rather than "inline",
> for those compilers that don't support the `inline' keyword. See
> src/config.in.
Using "inline" is fine because of the configure-time test that
defines "inline" to nothing when it is not supported:
$ grep -A4 to..__inline src/config.h
:
/* Define to `__inline__' or `__inline' if that's what the C compiler
calls it, or to nothing if 'inline' is not supported under any name. */
#ifndef __cplusplus
/* #undef inline */
#endif
There is one other use already:
lread.c:2256:static inline int
There are far more uses of INLINE:
$ git grep -w INLINE|grep -cw INLINE
144
Is there any reason not to replace all uses of INLINE with "inline"
and to remove the following from configure.in? I see no use of
"extern INLINE" anywhere in emacs:
/* If using GNU, then support inline function declarations. */
/* Don't try to switch on inline handling as detected by AC_C_INLINE
generally, because even if non-gcc compilers accept `inline', they
may reject `extern inline'. */
#if defined (__GNUC__)
#define INLINE __inline__
#else
#define INLINE
#endif
- 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 <=
- 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, 2011/05/28
- 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