Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >> release without change if they track all the way to the end. We don't
> >> support distinguishing an arbitrary snapshot of a development version,
> >> though; only the latest. So, if you have support for a feature in 0.9.4,
> >> then you test like this:
> >>
> >> #if OPENSSL_VERSION >= 0x00904000
> >
> > In that case I would just test for the release version number
> > OPENSSL_VERSION >= 0x000904100, ignoring that the feature already is
> > present in some of the development versions.
> >
> > But we're talking about a change that breaks existing code here, not
> > about new features.
>
> BTW, 0x00904000 is a 32bit value and when I remember correctly one could get
> problems with a few CPPs with values greater than 16bit?! Or did I intermix
> this with some other CPP issues?
Oh, we may have to stick an L on the end for complete correctness.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
