On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:51 AM Florian Weimer via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Thomas Koenig via Gcc: > > > A patch for gcc has to apply and work. For anything not completely > > trivial this means that it has to tie in with gcc's data structures > > and algorithms. A non-trivial patch that is an exact copy of somebody > > else's work has to come from a gcc branch. So it is already covered > > by the GPL v3 (or v2, for very old versions). > > I think for some auto-written patches, this line of argument has a lot > of merit. > > Aren't there newer front ends that are somewhat separated from the rest > of GCC's data structures?
Yes. > And it clearly does not apply to run-time library code and test cases. That's true. I'll note that verbatim copying of single lines or very small common patterns still happens, but of course legal significance is questionable. I think this just shows that a black-and-white view on this is wrong. Sure, not using LLMs at all makes sure you never get LLM introduced issues. Like never driving a car makes sure you never have a car accident. The actual issues we're going to have with LLMs are much more likely that people do not understand the code LLMs produce and we end up having (more) code that's not really maintainable. Richard. > > Thanks, > Florian >
