On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 05:42:42PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > In message > <2f548b68de1c47dfaa6a3b0107080...@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on > Tue, 4 Jul 2017 15:05:06 +0000, "Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" > <openssl-dev@openssl.org> said: > > openssl-dev> > beldmit> What is the minimal version of the compiler to build > openssl? > openssl-dev> > beldmit> Is it still required C89 compatibility or C99 > standard can be used? > openssl-dev> > beldmit> > openssl-dev> > beldmit> Unfortunately, I did not find these requirements in > documentation. > openssl-dev> > > openssl-dev> > At the beginning of INSTALL, you will find a set of > requirements. On of them > openssl-dev> > is "an ANSI C compiler". > openssl-dev> > openssl-dev> That doesn't answer the question :) Which version of ANSI C? > > Ah, you're right, "ANSI C" is a bit of a loose target depending on who > you ask. As far as I know, we refer to C89/C90 (they are essentially > the same for our intents and purposes). > > openssl-dev> I believe C89 is written down somewhere. > > C89 is written nowhere in the source at least, nor is C90. We should > probably clarify that. > > > Speculating a bit, it's probably safe to say that C95 compiler is fine > as well. C99, not so much, there's too much risk that we start > excluding some platforms if we start using its features. Anyway, I > don't think it's safe to upgrade our minimum expectations now. > OpenSSL 1.2.0 would be a good time for such re-evaluations.
I think the minimum requirement is C89 + support for "long long". A newer version shouldn't be a problem, it should work with a compiler that defaults to C11 for instance. Kurt -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
