On 3/6/20 10:15 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 10:41, Andreas Krebbel <kreb...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> zTPF uses the same numeric value for ENOSYS and ENOTSUP. >> >> Ok for mainline? >> >> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: >> >> 2020-03-06 Andreas Krebbel <kreb...@linux.ibm.com> >> >> * src/c++11/system_error.cc: Omit the ENOTSUP case statement if it >> would match ENOSYS. >> --- >> libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/system_error.cc | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/system_error.cc >> b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/system_error.cc >> index 7844afe6d2a..1f06e67feea 100644 >> --- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/system_error.cc >> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/system_error.cc >> @@ -251,7 +251,8 @@ namespace >> #ifdef ENOTSOCK >> case ENOTSOCK: >> #endif >> -#ifdef ENOTSUP >> +#if defined ENOTSUP && (!defined ENOSYS || ENOTSUP != ENOSYS) > > Hmm, what system does not have ENOSYS but has ENOTSUP? Meaning the > !defined ENOSYS > bit? > None that I know about. It is just to make sure the compare afterwards operates on defined inputs.
Andreas
