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 openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]