>>
>> There's no particular reason for having a nested call there anyway.
>
> But there's also no particular reason why we should avoid it, unless we
> know more about which environment is broken if we don't avoid it, since
> as written, it is standards-compliant code.
P.S. Just because code i
On 01/04/13 16:17, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>> This fixes it:
>>>
>>> 261 memcpy (ctx->buffer, buffer, 64);
>>> 262 md5_process_block (ctx->buffer, 64, ctx);
>>>
>>> There's no particular reason for having a nested call there anyway.
$ gcc --version ; uname -a ; /lib/glib
On 01/04/13 15:38, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 01/04/13 15:27, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> This fixes it:
>>
>> 261 memcpy (ctx->buffer, buffer, 64);
>> 262 md5_process_block (ctx->buffer, 64, ctx);
>>
>> There's no particular reason for having a nested call there anyway.
>>
>
