[openssl-dev] Compiler requirements

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 05:42:42PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <2f548b68de1c47dfaa6a3b0107080a2d at usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on Tue, 4 Jul 2017 15:05:06 +0000, "Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" <openssl-dev at 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