From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id E66EC3858C66; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:55:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E66EC3858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676987735;
	bh=D7/pvFETP96RjO7/47JrjJ1VZohT205jXJeinRyJvDg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PeYkns9O+RzvRST1JutIMnfWl4GFWvimk0adJ9fsOfQe1YTwxZRIIIaoKBkYIXdqY
	 IsU1qr2MuAEipbnIG3cgsxOneZQp1pOFER90qRD9JKgwj1h8i3ZuQduGZrNF3d5EC3
	 B5kRmW+duKF6O7G4NZH4bsco9T+L5lk9eCTPsM6M=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/106998] [10/11/12/13 Regression] libsanitizer
 PATH_MAX not defined for linux new targets
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:55:35 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106998-4-n2Csp5kVq5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106998-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106998-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106998

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't see linux/limits.h included still, but limits.h is - should musl
include linux/limits.h by itself?

Please link to upstream generated issues.=