Re: md5 broken?

[Paul Eggert]

On 05/29/11 19:47, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> My understanding is that the traditional GCC and C99 interpretations
> for "inline" and "extern inline" are basically reversed.

Although the two interpretations of "inline" are different, Emacs
sticks to the intersection of the two, so it should be OK.

One part of this intersection is "static inline".  Another part
is when a function is first declared without "inline" and then
defined with "inline".  Emacs always done one or the other;
otherwise its current use of "INLINE" wouldn't be safe.

Here's where this is documented:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/Inline.html