> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 15:07
> To: James K. Lowden <jklow...@schemamania.org>
> Cc: Andreas Schwab <sch...@suse.de>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL v3: 3/14 80K bld: config and build machinery
>
> Hi James,
>
> > Our intention, tell me if you disagree, is that cobol is enabled if
> >
> > 1. --enable-languages=all, and
> > 2. the host and target are "known good", x86_64 or aarch64
>
> you tend to forget there's a world outside of Linux, actually: as you
can
> see at least in PRs cobol/119217 and cobol/119218, the code is currently
> riddled with lots of Linux-specific assumptions which break left and
right
> on e.g. Darwin/x86_64 and Solaris/amd64. Until this is sorted out, this
> should be x86_64-*-linux* and aarch64-*-linux*, I believe.
>
> > or
> >
> > 3. --enable-languages=cobol, and
> > 4. the host and target are "plausible", 64-bit LE.
>
> I don't think that's right: --enable-languages=cobol should enable cobol
> unconditionally if the user forces it, say to try on a different
> architecture (like sparcv9, which is 64-bit BE). No need to
second-guess
> here or force users to modify configure here.
Indeed: When --enable-languages= includes cobol explicitly, it is built.
Otherwise, cobol is built when the target and host are x86_64-*-* or
aarch64-*-* except when the target is *-*-darwin*
>
> Rainer
>
> --
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
