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?
