Andy Polyakov wrote:
> How do we know that these are not or should not be treated as mingw64
> bugs? I mean it worked for mingw for years (I wonder how by the way),
> now ancestor is *being developed* and how come it's not its fault:-)
I don't really understand that part about "ancestor", but never mind ...
> Well, I can accept that pid_t could be treated better in OpenSSL (#ifdef
> there is nothing but strange), but I don't buy masking of alarm. It's
> impossible to implement Unix-ish alarm on Windows and it simply
> shouldn't be there (nor SIGALRM definition). Quick check reveals that
> alarm is nothing but "return 0." What's more appropriate: to be honest
> or not to tell truth? I mean absence of alarm would be honest, while
> implementing it as return 0 would be "not telling truth"...
Sounds convincing to me, so I took the liberty to forward this to
the mingw-w64 mailing list in the hope that they'll do something
about it.
Thanks,
Stefan
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
