Re: 4.1.30 and 4.1.31 build failure on S10x86 5/08

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:49:12 -0500
+------ "J.D. Bronson" wrote (Sun, 20-Dec-71, 20:02 -0500):
| 
| At 09:23 PM 10/18/2008 -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
| >I'll have to install solaris 8 to check this out...
| >
| >S10 doesn't require the other includes, only the workaround for __inline.
| >
| >Cheers,
| >Darren
| 
| Could someone possibly provide a S10 'only' patch from this so I can test?

That would be just this part of the original diff:

	@@ -43,7 +49,11 @@
	 static u_int8_t arc4_randbyte(void);
	 static int ipf_read_random(void *dest, int length);
 
	+#ifdef __SUNPRO_C
	+static inline void
	+#else
	 static __inline void
	+#endif
	 arc4_swap(u_int8_t *a, u_int8_t *b)
	 {
	 	u_int8_t c;

Though those line numbers would change to "@@ -43,7 +43,11 @@"
without the previous six extra lines for the includes.

If one wants to guard the gcc "__inline" (or any other gcc-isms),
the "__GNUC__" cpp macro might be best choice, short of using any
autoconf-like generated macros.  Something like:

	#if   defined __GNUC__
	static __inline void
	#elif defined __SUNPRO_C
	static inline void
	#else
	static void
	#endif

Alas, I haven't used any other compilers recently enough to recall
what might be appropriate for them.  A quick look at GNU autoconf
suggests that some compilers use "__inline__".  Since autoconf
actually tests for all three, it doesn't enumerate which compiler
uses which inline flavor.

Best,
Chuck