http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2507


s...@invisibleduck.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|bugzi...@digitalmars.com    |s...@invisibleduck.org




------- Comment #1 from s...@invisibleduck.org  2008-12-11 16:46 -------
This is a slightly weird situation.  Windows does actually claim Posix
compliance provided you have the proper subsystem installed (I think it's even
bundled as a part of the OS with Vista), so I think the proper behavior should
be to treat Windows Posix support as simply not yet implemented, just like
Solaris, etc.  Given this, the headers are already implemented correctly.  The
compile errors are intended, and serve as an easy means of determining, by the
errors, what functionality must be added to support some new configuration.

That said, I'd suggest not actually using the Posix features of Windows, since
they're poorly implemented.  If you need something in the Windows headers that
aren't currently there, perhaps that should be submitted as a separate issue?


-- 

Reply via email to