Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2

[Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>]

	hello Robert.  I like your suggestion, but there are two issues I ran
into using it.  

1.  I tried using the definitions from sys/cdefs.h in netbsd-90 sources,
but gcc 3.3.x didn't like the final usage when I tried to compile
everything up.

2.  The dist sources define __CTASSERT in a different way, so I'm not sure
the test you propose will always work.  Honestly, my head begins to spin
when I start tracing the include paths and the order of such includes in
the build process.  I figure this way is least invasive for current builds,
though it doesn't solve the problem of cross -OS portability.

Thoughts?
-thanks
-Brian

On Sep 28,  8:05am, Robert Elz wrote:
} Subject: Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2
} The following reply was made to PR misc/54581; it has been noted by GNATS.
} 
} From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
} To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
} Cc: 
} Subject: Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2
} Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:03:55 +0700
} 
}      Date:        Sat, 28 Sep 2019 00:30:01 +0000 (UTC)
}      From:        Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>
}      Message-ID:  <20190928003001.AE24C7A23E%mollari.NetBSD.org@localhost>
}  
}  
}    |   #if HAVE_SYS_CDEFS_H
}    |   #include <sys/cdefs.h>
}    |  +/* 
}    |  + * __CTASSERT isn't defined until NetBSD-6, allow builds that want it
}    |  + * to build on NetBSD-5 and older.
}    |  + */
}    |  +#if (defined(__NetBSD_Version__) && __NetBSD_Version__ < 600000000)
}  
}  That would be better done as
}  	#ifndef __CTASSERT
}  
}    |  +#define	__CTASSERT1(x, y, z)	typedef char y ## z[/*CONSTCOND*/(x) ? 1 : -1]
}  
}  And that one the way it is done now in HEAD, rather than that old way
}  (though for this purpose it doesn't matter all that much, in fact, for
}  the purpose, simply defining __CTASSERT() to generate nothing would do).
}  
}  kre
}  
>-- End of excerpt from Robert Elz