NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

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: Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@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 21:25:37 +0200

 On 28.09.2019 21:10, Brian Buhrow wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR misc/54581; it has been noted by GNAT=
 S.
 >
 > From: Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>
 > To: gnats-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 12:05:27 -0700
 >
 >  	hello Robert Elz suggested a better patch which I've partially
 >  implemented and tested. Here it is.
 >  If there are no objections, I'll commit this when the process is comple=
 te.
 >  -thanks
 >  -Brian
 >
 >
 >  Index: compat_defs.h
 >  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 >  RCS file: /cvsroot/src/tools/compat/compat_defs.h,v
 >  retrieving revision 1.116
 >  diff -u -r1.116 compat_defs.h
 >  --- compat_defs.h	19 Jun 2019 23:33:07 -0000	1.116
 >  +++ compat_defs.h	28 Sep 2019 19:00:59 -0000
 >  @@ -118,6 +118,15 @@
 >
 >   #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.
 >  + */
 >  +#ifndef __CTASSERT
 >  +#define	__CTASSERT(x)		__CTASSERT0(x, __ctassert, __LINE__)
 >  +#define	__CTASSERT0(x, y, z)	__CTASSERT1(x, y, z)
 >  +#define	__CTASSERT1(x, y, z)	typedef char y ## z[/*CONSTCOND*/(x) ? 1 =
 : -1]
 >  +#endif /* __CTASSERT */
 >   #endif
 >   #if HAVE_SYS_SYSLIMITS_H
 >   #include <sys/syslimits.h>
 >
 >
 
 Is there any reason to pick this legacy form instead of the current one?
 


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index