Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Patch 1, was discussed before and might be solved in a better way as an > alternative. > > Patch 2 and 3 are "nice to have" for portability and hopefully not controversial > but could be dropped, if someone feels strongly against it. > > Patch 4 is not something I'd found failing anywhere, but the fact that Microsoft > mentions it is only supported as an extension and it needs to be supported by > the dynamic linker and I couldn't find anything clear about it in POSIX means, > that is probably safer this way. All of them look sensible. Thanks.
