[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |13.5 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- Fixed on all active branches.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2294ea474ed2b891e3a8a015567cc6d1e641840 commit r14-12517-ge2294ea474ed2b891e3a8a015567cc6d1e641840 Author: Eric Botcazou Date: Sun Apr 12 10:59:52 2026 +0200 Ada: Fix maximum path length regression on Windows That's a regression present on all active branches, whereby GNAT uses a maximum path length of 256 instead of 260 bytes on Windows. gcc/ada/ PR ada/124836 * adaint.c [__MINGW32__]: Do not include mingw32.h twice, and also include sys/param.h.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80e1125ba8e28468fe3419d5f9e8e02aade7c275 commit r13-10258-g80e1125ba8e28468fe3419d5f9e8e02aade7c275 Author: Eric Botcazou Date: Sun Apr 12 10:59:52 2026 +0200 Ada: Fix maximum path length regression on Windows That's a regression present on all active branches, whereby GNAT uses a maximum path length of 256 instead of 260 bytes on Windows. gcc/ada/ PR ada/124836 * adaint.c [__MINGW32__]: Do not include mingw32.h twice, and also include sys/param.h.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9381c0d1fedb93bcd0843c6883677990a380981 commit r15-11069-ga9381c0d1fedb93bcd0843c6883677990a380981 Author: Eric Botcazou Date: Sun Apr 12 10:59:52 2026 +0200 Ada: Fix maximum path length regression on Windows That's a regression present on all active branches, whereby GNAT uses a maximum path length of 256 instead of 260 bytes on Windows. gcc/ada/ PR ada/124836 * adaint.c [__MINGW32__]: Do not include mingw32.h twice, and also include sys/param.h.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fff3733ea4e6d215f73f2529fad173681026c1a7 commit r16-8573-gfff3733ea4e6d215f73f2529fad173681026c1a7 Author: Eric Botcazou Date: Sun Apr 12 10:59:52 2026 +0200 Ada: Fix maximum path length regression on Windows That's a regression present on all active branches, whereby GNAT uses a maximum path length of 256 instead of 260 bytes on Windows. gcc/ada/ PR ada/124836 * adaint.c [__MINGW32__]: Do not include mingw32.h twice, and also include sys/param.h.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- The relevant commit is actually af61dc3ffd7c184571bcf1d773d97716cfe6093a.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Fixing.
[Bug ada/124836] [13/14/15/16 regression] GNAT uses a max path length of 256 on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124836 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|GNAT run time libraries on |[13/14/15/16 regression] |Windows use a max path |GNAT uses a max path length |length of 256 |of 256 on Windows Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- I see, thanks for the explanation.
