On 25/03/2016 17:55, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Just out of interest, what requirement is there to be able to build with
compilers which support only a 27 year old version of C which was superseded
17 years ago? I can't imagine much need to build now with compilers which
don't support at least the most popular features of C99 like inline.
I can't really answer what's the reason for ANSI C or std=c90. The
project sets its goals, so I'll have to leave that up to folks like
Dr. Henson, Andy, Richard, Matt and Viktor.
I'd misunderstood what you were doing here; I thought this was just
something you were playing with yourself rather than an officially
supported configuration option which you were checking. Thanks for the
great work you're doing checking all the options and combinations by the
way, it's flushing out a lot of things that will save me some effort
later ...
...
In another project I work with, we're happy to support the old stuff
like C++03. We don't want to dictate policy, and we want the user to
have choices. If you want to build on a 10 or 15 year old system and
it makes you happy, then hat's off to you.
Jeff
I agree that OpenSSL should support older compilers and environments,
but it's a question of how far back it's worth going and how much effort
and code complexity it warrants to do it. Most of the things I work on
target environments with a compiler capable of at least C89 plus a core
subset of the functionality added in C95 and C99 - mostly the bits that
many compilers were already supporting in the early 90's such as
'inline' and (gulp) C++ line-end comments. Unless there are supported
platforms which require it, it seems a bit excessive to have code
complexity to work with compilers which support only C as it was 27
years and 2 major language standard revisions ago.
--
J. J. Farrell
Not speaking for Oracle.
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
