Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 8:10 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 to restrict =all to enable cobol only for known-good platform triples.
> But IIRC that's what libgcobol configure.tgt does - IIRC intent was to allow
> a cobol build with explicit 'cobol' included even when configure.tgt claims
> unsupported? So why's *-*solaris now included in =all?
>
> I'm a bit confused, I thought we had =all restricted already.
Think we may be missing some wiring.
# Always enable COBOL for --enable-languages=*cobol*
# Otherwise, enable COBOL only for known architectures
case ,${enable_languages}, in
[...]
*)
case "${target}" in
*-*-darwin*)
unsupported_languages="$unsupported_languages cobol"
;;
x86_64-*-*|aarch64-*-*)
;;
*-*-*)
unsupported_languages="$unsupported_languages cobol"
;;
esac
[... ditto ${host} ...]
We don't seem to ever add cobol to unsupported_languages if we added
target-libgcobol to noconfigdirs.
The earlier check for libgcobol being supported does match other runtime
libraries but the only other *language-specific* runtime library it
matches is libphobos, where D supports a minimal build without that, so
it doesn't cater for this.
