Hi,
I got a reaction from Andy Polyakov (one of the openssl lead developers)
regarding my suggested patch to make OpenSSL compile with mingw-w64,
that I wanted to pass on:
I wrote:
> > Apart from adding a line to configure, I needed a slight modification
> > to apps/speed.c and engines/e_aep.c because mingw-w64 comes
> > with definitions for "pid_t" and "alarm"
And here's what Andy replied, especially the part about alarm seems
convinving (to me):
> 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:-)
> 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"...
Regards,
Stefan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
