From: Richard Levitte <[email protected]> > sms> > http://antinode.info/ftp/openssl/1_0_0d/openssl-SNAP-20110321_s1.zip > > Just to clarify, you used openssl-SNAP-20110321.tar.gz for this? > That's a different branch than the one 1.0.0d comes from...
Yes. (Or "openssl-SNAP-20110321^.tar.gz;1", as it's known around here.) > The way it's set up, we currently maintain the following branches: > [...] Thanks for the more detailed explanation. If the README had said all that, then I might have chosen a different kit. > If you worked on 1.0.0d before and now played with HEAD, it must be > confusing. There are some differences... The relevant stuff all looked familiar enough. > sms> [...] > sms> So I keep taking it out. I need more info than "DEC C, at least > sms> on VMS" to understand what the problem is, wherever it is, if > sms> [...] > > I've seen the compiler complain that struct timeval isn't defined. As I said, 'I need more info than "DEC C, at least on VMS" to understand what the problem is [...]'. That's still true. "I've seen" is not much of an improvement. For me, it _always_ works better without this stuff. Perhaps /STANDARD = RELAXED made some difference, too. If you look closely at the current builders, you may find that I've emptied all (almost all?) of the COMPILEWITH_CCx module lists which were related to warning suppression. Around here, I get pretty clean builds -- the usual two %CC-I-QUESTCOMPARE (plus the newly discovered %CC-I-FUNCMIXPTR for an explicit /POINTER_SIZE=32) are all the complaints I get. (Plus a bunch more VAX-only old-compiler infos which can also be ignored.) Clean, that is, except when I get the extra "help". SMS. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
