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]
