mirror of
https://github.com/openssl/openssl.git
synced 2024-11-21 01:15:20 +08:00
Minor WINDOWS.md cleanups
The possessive form of "Windows" has been updated from "Windows's" to "Windows'". The function call "a poll(2) call" has been specified as "a poll(2) system call" for clarity. The phrase "and supposed" has been corrected to "and was supposed" to improve sentence structure. The phrase "However Microsoft has" now includes a comma, revised to "However, Microsoft has" to enhance readability. The statement "Supporting these is a pain" has been adjusted to "Supporting these can be a pain" to better convey potential variability in user experience. CLA: trivial Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Paul Yang <kaishen.yy@antfin.com> Reviewed-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/24242)
This commit is contained in:
parent
a5cd06f7ff
commit
85eb4f303f
@ -2,11 +2,11 @@ Windows-related issues
|
||||
======================
|
||||
|
||||
Supporting Windows introduces some complications due to some "fun" peculiarities
|
||||
of Windows's socket API.
|
||||
of Windows socket API.
|
||||
|
||||
In general, Windows does not provide a poll(2) call. WSAPoll(2) was introduced
|
||||
in Vista and supposed to bring this functionality, but it had a bug in it which
|
||||
Microsoft refused to fix, making it rather pointless. However Microsoft has now
|
||||
In general, Windows does not provide a poll(2) system call. WSAPoll(2) was introduced
|
||||
in Vista and was supposed to bring this functionality, but it had a bug in it which
|
||||
Microsoft refused to fix, making it rather pointless. However, Microsoft has now
|
||||
finally fixed this bug in a build of Windows 10. So WSAPoll(2) is a viable
|
||||
method, but only on fairly new versions of Windows.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Windows does not provide anything like epoll or kqueue. For high performance
|
||||
network I/O, you are expected to use a Windows API called I/O Completion Ports
|
||||
(IOCP).
|
||||
|
||||
Supporting these is a pain for applications designed around polling. The reason
|
||||
Supporting these can be a pain for applications designed around polling. The reason
|
||||
is that IOCPs are a higher-level interface; it is easy to build an IOCP-like
|
||||
interface on top of polling, but it is not really possible to build a
|
||||
polling-like interface on top of IOCPs.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user