On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:51:48AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:56:55PM +1100, Alexis wrote: > > > > > "Lorenz (xha)" <m...@xha.li> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2024 at 08:47:07PM +1100, Alexis wrote: > > > > > > > > "Lorenz (xha)" <m...@xha.li> writes: > > > > > > > > > just out of couriosity, why is "as" in the base system if it > is > > > > > outdated and is updating it an option? > > > > > > > > i presume it's due to subsequent versions being licensed under later > > > > versions of the GPL, but i'd be happy to be corrected on this point. > > > > > > i couldn't find any discussions on why the later versions are not > > > acceptable in the base system. are there any? > > WRT the GPL the policy boils down to: > > - We do not want new software using GPL in our tree > - For existing software we only allow GPL2. For projects that switched > license like gcc, we stick at the latest GPL2 version and try to > replace the software.
what is the reason to only include GPLv2 and not GPLv3? that "as" doesn't support modern instructions is starting to cause all sorts of nasty problems. the compiler backend of hare, QBE, recently had a patch accepted which adds IBT/BTI support and i prepared the stdlib to be able to deal with IBT/BTI. however, the patch was reverted yesterday with the reason that the standard openbsd toolchain doesn't support it. i would need to patch QBE to accept a cfi flag (i don't even know if it'd get accepted), which, again, would introduce new workarounds in hare for openbsd. if updating "as" is really not an option, would a patch adding support for endbr64 and the BTI equivilant be accepted?
