On 2024-01-02, Lorenz (xha) <m...@xha.li> wrote: > what is the reason to only include GPLv2 and not GPLv3?
The new license terms are not wanted for the base OS. As with GCC, a newer GPLv3 version is available in ports. > 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. You could perhaps encode the bytes instead, like openssl does specifically so it will work on other OS with old binutils too.. 0xf3,0x0f,0x1e,0xfa > if updating "as" is really not an option, would a patch adding support > for endbr64 and the BTI equivilant be accepted? I can't say. Though I doubt there would much objection if it's clean and not a copy of a GPLv3-licensed upstream commit. -- Please keep replies on the mailing list.
