On Thu, Oct 02, 2008, Thomas J. Hruska wrote: > Thomas J. Hruska wrote: > > Needless to say, given the lack of response and further web searching > reveals issues with older VC++ linkers core dumping(?) against the latest > MinGW and I've already put forth 30+ hours (not counting the preparation > time of several months!), two CD-Rs, and who knows how much money into an > attempted production of a default OpenSSL FIPS 140-2 compliant binary build > for Windows (complete with fancy installer), I'm going to simply hold off > until 1.2.0 becomes available and then try again at that time. Mixing > together binaries from two totally different compilers is not only a bad > idea, it is a horrifically terrible idea. The fact that this supposedly > works at all for some people is a miracle. >
The 1.1.2 module (which I only became involved with towards the end) was designed round a Unix build system. For the 1.1.2 module it was a choice of mixing compilers or not having any Windows build at all. It was decided that was better than nothing. What version of gcc do you have with MSYS? There are issues with some versions of gcc. > Supposedly, from what I've read, 1.2.0 doesn't require mixing compilers. > That should significantly clean things up. Assuming, of course, "not > mixing compilers" allows the use of VC++. If I have to use MinGW, I will > be very annoyed. I'm also hoping I can compile against 0.9.8x instead of > 0.9.7m. > The 1.2 module (which I was involved with from the start) has Windows as a standard platform. It can be built using VC++ only. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Email, S/MIME and PGP keys: see homepage OpenSSL project core developer and freelance consultant. Homepage: http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
