Re: libgcc-math and the gcc 4.2 release
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Hi, | | Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I | asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math | transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute | them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that | request and so, after doing the emergency-removal of the wrongly | licensed double parts from libgcc-math I am going to remove the float | parts as well. This renders the SSE2 abi math functions support | unusable, so I am going forward and remove the following middle-end | patches as well: Sigh. [...] | As we're far into stage3 now I propose to remove libgcc-math from the | mainline again and re-instantiate it at the beginning of stage1 again. Please clarify things for me. Does that mean that in the future we (GG) have to develop our own codes independently of glibc? Or is that a no-no-no end? -- Gaby
Re: libgcc-math and the gcc 4.2 release
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Hi, | | Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I | asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math | transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute | them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that | request and so, after doing the emergency-removal of the wrongly | licensed double parts from libgcc-math I am going to remove the float | parts as well. This renders the SSE2 abi math functions support | unusable, so I am going forward and remove the following middle-end | patches as well: Sigh. [...] | As we're far into stage3 now I propose to remove libgcc-math from the | mainline again and re-instantiate it at the beginning of stage1 again. Please clarify things for me. Does that mean that in the future we (GG) have to develop our own codes independently of glibc? Or is that a no-no-no end? As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception like in this case). What is fine as far as I understand is extend/modify glibc itself to suit our needs - which is of course usually pointless because GCC is not in a glibc-only world. Richard. -- Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell / SUSE Labs
Re: libgcc-math and the gcc 4.2 release
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] | As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes | independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of | glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception | like in this case). What is fine as far as I understand is extend/modify | glibc itself to suit our needs - which is of course usually pointless | because GCC is not in a glibc-only world. Thanks for the clarification. I hope you're still interested in and motivated by the ligcc-math project. -- Gaby
Re: libgcc-math and the gcc 4.2 release
Richard Guenther wrote: Hi, Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that request and so, after doing the emergency-removal of the wrongly licensed double parts from libgcc-math I am going to remove the float parts as well. This renders the SSE2 abi math functions support unusable, so I am going forward and remove the following middle-end patches as well: Yes, that seems like the right plan, given RMS' decision. As we're far into stage3 now I propose to remove libgcc-math from the mainline again and re-instantiate it at the beginning of stage1 again. Again, I think that's a good idea. Another option would be to remove the library only after branching for 4.2 and only on that branch. I think it's better to remove it from mainline, just so that if there are any build issues we catch them before we branch. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: libgcc-math and the gcc 4.2 release
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes | independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of | glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception | like in this case). What is fine as far as I understand is extend/modify | glibc itself to suit our needs - which is of course usually pointless | because GCC is not in a glibc-only world. This is sad. I've always believed that it was important to support both worlds in a balanced manner. I do believe that making the generic code available to the non-glibc world is in fact extending its usage. There is the suggestion in the above that there may be considerations beyond licensing and copyright involved. I hope you're still interested in and motivated by the ligcc-math project. My impression is that this is blocked. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)
