On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:59 PM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > Ping. For easy reference I've again attached Richard Sandiford's > "libgcc: Add missing runtime exception notices". > > On 2021-07-12T17:34:09+0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > 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: > >>> >> >> 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 there…) > >>> > > >>> > 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. > > So in addition to David, would a Global Reviewer please review this?
OK. Thanks, Richard. > > Grüße > Thomas > > > ----------------- > Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 > München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas > Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht > München, HRB 106955
