Re: [openssl-project] Minimum C version

2018-10-07 Thread Tim Hudson
I don't see a *substantial benefit* from going to C99 and I've worked on numerous embedded platforms where it is highly unlikely that C99 support will ever be available. Kurt - do you have a specific list of features you think would be beneficial - or is it just a general sense to move forward?

Re: [openssl-project] Minimum C version

2018-10-07 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 02:01:36PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > Unfortunately Microsoft still does not support C99, I believe. Or did that > get fixed eventually, in a version that can reasonably be required? That is a very good point, and they never intend to fix that. So would that mean we

Re: [openssl-project] Minimum C version

2018-10-07 Thread Richard Levitte
In message <20181007124854.ga3...@roeckx.be> on Sun, 7 Oct 2018 14:48:55 +0200, Kurt Roeckx said: > We're currently still targetting C89/C90 + long long, yet use > various features of C99 and even some C11 when it's available. > > C99 is now almost 20 years old, can we please move to at least

[openssl-project] Minimum C version

2018-10-07 Thread Kurt Roeckx
Hi, We're currently still targetting C89/C90 + long long, yet use various features of C99 and even some C11 when it's available. C99 is now almost 20 years old, can we please move to at least that? Kurt ___ openssl-project mailing list