> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam James <s...@gentoo.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2025 19:53
> To: Robert Dubner <rdub...@symas.com>
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>; Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-
> bielefeld.de>; Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Andreas
Schwab
> <sch...@linux-m68k.org>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; James K. Lowden
> <jklow...@cobolworx.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Allow for undefined NAME_MAX [PR119217]
>
> Robert Dubner <rdub...@symas.com> writes:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 14:10
> >> To: Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> >> Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Andreas Schwab
> >> <sch...@linux-m68k.org>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Robert Dubner
> >> <rdub...@symas.com>; James K. Lowden <jklow...@cobolworx.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobol: Allow for undefined NAME_MAX [PR119217]
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 06:04:29PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> > That's one option, but maybe it's better the other way round:
instead
> > of
> >> > excluding known-bad targets, restrict cobol to known-good ones
> >> > (i.e. x86_64-*-linux* and aarch64-*-linux*) instead.
> >> >
> >> > I've been using the following for this (should be retested for
> > safety).
> >>
> >> I admit I don't really know what works and what doesn't out of the
box
> >> now,
> >> but your patch looks reasonable to me for 15 branch.
> >>
> >> Richard, Robert and/or James, do you agree?
> >
> > I agree. At the present time, I have access to only aarch64/x86_64-
> linux
> > machines, so those are the only ones I know work. I seem to recall I
> > originally did it that way; only those configurations were
white-listed.
>
> I think you may be mistaken. In r15-7941-g45c281deb7a2e2, aarch64 and
> x86_64 were whitelisted as *architectures*, but the platform (including
> the kernel - Linux) wasn't specified. Rainer is reporting an issue with
> x86_64 Solaris.
I wouldn't be surprised. I should have stopped after, "I agree."
>
> thanks,
> sam
