On 10.01.2020 17:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 07/01/20 12:44 -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> For Jason and Krister's benefit, that last comment was referring to >>> an earlier suggestion to not try to support old NetBSD releases, see >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2020-01/msg00026.html >>> >>>> I think we need the netbsd target maintainers (CC'd) to decide whether >>>> GCC should still support older releases or drop that support for GCC >>>> 10. Usually I'd say we need a period of deprecation, but if GCC >>>> doesn't currently build on NetBSD then maybe that's unnecessary. >> >> The affected NetBSD versions are NetBSD 6 and earlier, which are EOL >> from the NetBSD perspective, so I think this is OK. > > So is this patch OK then? >
Looks good to me. > Could somebody please test it on NetBSD? (Ideally on the oldest > supported release, but anything is better than nothing). > Works for me on: $ uname -a NetBSD chieftec 9.99.37 NetBSD 9.99.37 (GENERIC) #5: Mon Jan 13 15:39:58 CET 2020 root@chieftec:/public/netbsd-root/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC amd64 I see no reason why would it break on older releases, but I don't have them handy for tests. > This differs from the patches posted by using _CTYPE_BL for the > isblank class, which seems better than using _CTYPE_S. > > _CTYPE_BL is the right bit for isblank().
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
