Re: BROKEN_NON_BLOCKING_CONNECT

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1221 bytes --]

On 03/27/2015 10:58 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/27/2015 02:59 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Are there any other platforms that might
>> need it and the related SELECT_CAN_DO_WRITE_MASK and
>> NON_BLOCKING_CONNECT?  Or can these be deleted now?
> No platforms should need BROKEN_NON_BLOCKING_CONNECT or
> SELECT_CAN_DO_WRITE_MASK, so I removed them by applying the attached
> patch.  Platforms that predate POSIX.1-2001 might need
> NON_BLOCKING_CONNECT, though, since that feature wasn't standardized by
> POSIX until POSIX.1-2001, so I left that part alone for now.
> 
> This raises the topic of how far back in history Emacs should go, when
> trying to support older platforms.  Currently Emacs is quite
> conservative and relies only on POSIX.1-1988 or later.  I don't know of
> any currently-supported GNUish or Unixish platform that doesn't largely
> conform to POSIX.1-2001 or later, so as far as I know the Emacs code
> that runs only on hosts predating POSIX-2001 isn't being tested and
> quite possibly no longer works.  So it would make sense for Emacs to
> start assuming POSIX.1-2001 or later

It'd be nice to assume UNICODE on Windows too. Windows 95 will be 20
years old in August.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]