Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Compiling OpenSSL with mingw-w64

[Kai T. <Kai...@on...>]

Hi Stefan,

>         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 

I agree that the declaration of alarm is a way "not telling truth" here, 
but I found some applications, which are dependent to such a "not honest" 
way. I could agree to remove the declaration from headerset by using a 
macro clause '__MINGW_POSIX_ALARM' (in io.h). The declaration of SIGALRM I 
dislike to remove, but if it is necessary to remove this define, please 
describe me the reason more detailed.
May could you prepare a patch for mingw-w64 for this and post it to our 
patch-tracker (or to this list)?

Cheers,
  Kai

|  (\_/)  This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
| (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
| (")_(") world domination.