David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: >> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:31 PM Richard Sandiford >> > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:53 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc >> >> > <g...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> It was pointed out to me off-list that config/aarch64/value-unwind.h >> >> >> is missing the runtime exception. It looks like a few other files >> >> >> are too; a fuller list is: >> >> >> >> >> >> libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h >> >> >> libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h >> >> >> libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h >> >> >> libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h >> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly for the aarch64 file this was simply a mistake; >> >> >> it seems to have been copied from the i386 version, both of which >> >> >> reference the runtime exception but don't actually include it. >> >> >> >> >> >> What's the procedure for fixing this? Can we treat it as a textual >> >> >> error or do the files need to be formally relicensed? >> >> > >> >> > I'm unsure what you mean by "formally relicensed". >> >> >> >> It seemed like there were two possibilities: the licence of the files >> >> is actually GPL + exception despite what the text says (the textual >> >> error case), or the licence of the files is plain GPL because the text >> >> has said so since the introduction of the files. In the latter case >> >> I'd have imagined that someone would need to relicense the code so >> >> that it is GPL + exception. >> >> >> >> > It generally is considered a textual omission. The runtime library >> >> > components of GCC are intended to be licensed under the runtime >> >> > exception, which was granted and approved at the time of introduction. >> >> >> >> OK, thanks. So would a patch to fix at least the i386 and aarch64 header >> >> files be acceptable? (I'm happy to fix the other two as well if that's >> >> definitely the right thing to do. It's just that there's more history >> >> involved thereā¦) >> > >> > Please correct the text in the files. The files in libgcc used in the >> > GCC runtime are intended to be licensed with the runtime exception and >> > GCC previously was granted approval for that licensing and purpose. >> > >> > As you are asking the question, I sincerely doubt that ARM and Cavium >> > intended to apply a license without the exception to those files. And >> > similarly for Intel and FRV. >> >> FTR, I think only Linaro (rather than Arm) touched the aarch64 file. >> >> > The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and >> > usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception. >> >> Ack. Is the patch below OK for trunk and branches? > > I'm not certain whom you are asking for approval,
I was assuming it would need a global reviewer. > but it looks good to me. Thanks. > It would be nice to add SPDX License Identifier at the top of the > files as well, but that's not required. Yeah, I agree that might a good thing to have, but TBH I try to keep my involvement with licensing stuff to the bare minimum :-) Richard