+To solve that problem for VC++ versions up to 6, one should run
+VCVARS32.BAT which is found in the 'bin' subdirectory of the VC++
+installation directory (somewhere under 'Program Files'). For VC++
+version 7 (and up?), which is also called VS.NET, the file is called
+VSVARS32.BAT instead.
+This needs to be done prior to running NMAKE, and the changes are only
+valid for the current DOS session.
+
+
+* What is special about OpenSSL on Redhat?
+
+Red Hat Linux (release 7.0 and later) include a preinstalled limited
+version of OpenSSL. For patent reasons, support for IDEA, RC5 and MDC2
+is disabled in this version. The same may apply to other Linux distributions.
+Users may therefore wish to install more or all of the features left out.
+
+To do this you MUST ensure that you do not overwrite the openssl that is in
+/usr/bin on your Red Hat machine. Several packages depend on this file,
+including sendmail and ssh. /usr/local/bin is a good alternative choice. The
+libraries that come with Red Hat 7.0 onwards have different names and so are
+not affected. (eg For Red Hat 7.2 they are /lib/libssl.so.0.9.6b and
+/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6b with symlinks /lib/libssl.so.2 and
+/lib/libcrypto.so.2 respectively).
+
+Please note that we have been advised by Red Hat attempting to recompile the
+openssl rpm with all the cryptography enabled will not work. All other
+packages depend on the original Red Hat supplied openssl package. It is also
+worth noting that due to the way Red Hat supplies its packages, updates to
+openssl on each distribution never change the package version, only the
+build number. For example, on Red Hat 7.1, the latest openssl package has
+version number 0.9.6 and build number 9 even though it contains all the
+relevant updates in packages up to and including 0.9.6b.
+
+A possible way around this is to persuade Red Hat to produce a non-US
+version of Red Hat Linux.
+
+FYI: Patent numbers and expiry dates of US patents:
+MDC-2: 4,908,861 13/03/2007
+IDEA: 5,214,703 25/05/2010
+RC5: 5,724,428 03/03/2015
+
+
+* Why does the OpenSSL compilation fail on MacOS X?
+
+If the failure happens when trying to build the "openssl" binary, with
+a large number of undefined symbols, it's very probable that you have
+OpenSSL 0.9.6b delivered with the operating system (you can find out by
+running '/usr/bin/openssl version') and that you were trying to build
+OpenSSL 0.9.7 or newer. The problem is that the loader ('ld') in
+MacOS X has a misfeature that's quite difficult to go around.
+Look in the file PROBLEMS for a more detailed explanation and for possible
+solutions.
+
+
+* Why does the OpenSSL test suite fail on MacOS X?
+
+If the failure happens when running 'make test' and the RC4 test fails,
+it's very probable that you have OpenSSL 0.9.6b delivered with the
+operating system (you can find out by running '/usr/bin/openssl version')
+and that you were trying to build OpenSSL 0.9.6d. The problem is that
+the loader ('ld') in MacOS X has a misfeature that's quite difficult to
+go around and has linked the programs "openssl" and the test programs
+with /usr/lib/libcrypto.dylib and /usr/lib/libssl.dylib instead of the
+libraries you just built.
+Look in the file PROBLEMS for a more detailed explanation and for possible
+solutions.
+
+* Why does the OpenSSL test suite fail in BN_sqr test [on a 64-bit platform]?
+
+Failure in BN_sqr test is most likely caused by a failure to configure the
+toolkit for current platform or lack of support for the platform in question.
+Run './config -t' and './apps/openssl version -p'. Do these platform
+identifiers match? If they don't, then you most likely failed to run
+./config and you're hereby advised to do so before filing a bug report.
+If ./config itself fails to run, then it's most likely problem with your
+local environment and you should turn to your system administrator (or
+similar). If identifiers match (and/or no alternative identifier is
+suggested by ./config script), then the platform is unsupported. There might
+or might not be a workaround. Most notably on SPARC64 platforms with GNU
+C compiler you should be able to produce a working build by running
+'./config -m32'. I understand that -m32 might not be what you want/need,
+but the build should be operational. For further details turn to
+<openssl-dev@openssl.org>.
+
+* Why does OpenBSD-i386 build fail on des-586.s with "Unimplemented segment type"?
+
+As of 0.9.7 assembler routines were overhauled for position independence
+of the machine code, which is essential for shared library support. For
+some reason OpenBSD is equipped with an out-of-date GNU assembler which
+finds the new code offensive. To work around the problem, configure with
+no-asm (and sacrifice a great deal of performance) or patch your assembler
+according to <URL: http://www.openssl.org/~appro/gas-1.92.3.OpenBSD.patch>.
+For your convenience a pre-compiled replacement binary is provided at
+<URL: http://www.openssl.org/~appro/gas-1.92.3.static.aout.bin>.
+Reportedly elder *BSD a.out platforms also suffer from this problem and
+remedy should be same. Provided binary is statically linked and should be
+working across wider range of *BSD branches, not just OpenBSD.
+
+* Why does the OpenSSL test suite fail in sha512t on x86 CPU?
+
+If the test program in question fails withs SIGILL, Illegal Instruction
+exception, then you more than likely to run SSE2-capable CPU, such as
+Intel P4, under control of kernel which does not support SSE2
+instruction extentions. See accompanying INSTALL file and
+OPENSSL_ia32cap(3) documentation page for further information.
+
+* Why does compiler fail to compile sha512.c?
+
+OpenSSL SHA-512 implementation depends on compiler support for 64-bit
+integer type. Few elder compilers [ULTRIX cc, SCO compiler to mention a
+couple] lack support for this and therefore are incapable of compiling
+the module in question. The recommendation is to disable SHA-512 by
+adding no-sha512 to ./config [or ./Configure] command line. Another
+possible alternative might be to switch to GCC.
+
+* Test suite still fails, what to do?
+
+Another common reason for failure to complete some particular test is
+simply bad code generated by a buggy component in toolchain or deficiency
+in run-time environment. There are few cases documented in PROBLEMS file,
+consult it for possible workaround before you beat the drum. Even if you
+don't find solution or even mention there, do reserve for possibility of
+a compiler bug. Compiler bugs might appear in rather bizarre ways, they
+never make sense, and tend to emerge when you least expect them. In order
+to identify one, drop optimization level, e.g. by editing CFLAG line in
+top-level Makefile, recompile and re-run the test.