[Bug libc/2363] New: EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[Bug libc/2363] New: EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[sandals at crustytoothpaste dot ath dot cx]

The values of EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP must be different according to SUSv3,
whereas in glibc they are the same.

Steps to Reproduce:
0. Create a source file including a switch statement with both EOPNOTSUPP and
ENOTSUP as case values.
1. Attempt to compile said file.
2. Scream in frustration.

Actual Results:
gcc complains about duplicate case values because the two errors are the same.

Expected Results:
gcc doesn't complain because there is no syntax error.

Build Date and Platform:
Debian GNU/Linux i386/sid, using libc6 2.3.6-1.

Additional Builds and Platforms:
- Also Occurs On:
  Debian GNU/Linux powerpc/sid, using libc6 2.3.6-1.

-- 
           Summary: EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different,
                    according to SUSv3
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.3.6
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: libc
        AssignedTo: drepper at redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: sandals at crustytoothpaste dot ath dot cx
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2006-02-20 03:04 -------
Tell this to the kernel people once you finish your time machine and go back to
1991.  This is part of the ABI.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[sandals at crustytoothpaste dot ath dot cx]

------- Additional Comments From sandals at crustytoothpaste dot ath dot cx  2006-02-20 04:03 -------
If this is part of the ABI, then the ABI is broken.  Just because things have
always been one way does not mean that way is right, or even acceptable; an
argument from tradition is a logical fallacy.

Currently glibc claims to support SUSv3, by setting _POSIX_VERSION to 200112L. 
If it is not your intention to fix this, then please don't lie to the programmer
and tell them you support a standard which you do not.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2006-02-20 04:31 -------
Stop reopening this bug.  Not only is this fixed by the ABI, this also has
nothing to do with the libc as the kernel defines the error numbers.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org]

------- Additional Comments From samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org  2006-12-06 22:18 -------
Just leaving a note about the bug: this topic was discussed at opengroup, see
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/latest/xbdbug2.txt
ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP may then be equal.


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[nicolas at debian dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

--- Comment #11 from nicolas at debian dot org ---
> Probably that patches should go to the libc-alpha mailing list, not here.

https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2019-08/msg00564.html

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com

--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to nicolas from comment #9)
> What is blocking this?

Probably that patches should go to the libc-alpha mailing list, not here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/2363] EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP in errno.h must be different, according to SUSv3

[nicolas at debian dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2363

--- Comment #9 from nicolas at debian dot org ---
What is blocking this?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.