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

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

The following reply was made to PR misc/54581; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, misc-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
        netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost
Subject: Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 09:07:43 -0700

 	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