On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:16 AM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> so, untested simple:
>
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -768,6 +768,7 @@ if test -d ${srcdir}/libgcobol; then
> then
> AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
> noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libgcobol"
> + unsupported_languages="$unsupported_languages cobol"
> else
> AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
> fi
>
> may do it for now. It still allows forcing libgcobol build with
> --enable-libgcobol. But if doing --enable-languages=cobol, you'd need
> --enable-libgcobol as well (but no idea if we really have tested cobol
> w/o libgcobol at all yet, or what).
I'd be OK with this "double opt-in".
Richard.
