On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 09:52, Andreas Krebbel <kreb...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > 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.
Right, it's the same pattern we use for the other cases of possibly duplicated values. OK to commit, thanks.
