| Message ID | 2617860.HsegqppYRI@polaris |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Do you have a reason for using fp-bit instead of soft-fp? libgcc files are generally GPL+exception, not LGPL without exception with a very old FSF address (config/visium/div64.c, mod64.c, set_trampoline_parity.c, udiv64.c, udivmod64.c, umod64.c)
> Do you have a reason for using fp-bit instead of soft-fp? Apart from the obvious historical reason, probably not, but recently added ports (Blackfin, Epiphany) also use it so I'm not sure we want to change it. > libgcc files are generally GPL+exception, not LGPL without exception with > a very old FSF address (config/visium/div64.c, mod64.c, > set_trampoline_parity.c, udiv64.c, udivmod64.c, umod64.c) Files whose copyright/origin is clear are already GPL+exception, but these 6 files were originally imported from Glibc so they aren't in the same basket. I guess I can reuse the copyright notice of soft-fp for them.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Do you have a reason for using fp-bit instead of soft-fp? > > Apart from the obvious historical reason, probably not, but recently added > ports (Blackfin, Epiphany) also use it so I'm not sure we want to change it. I doubt they have any good reason for using it. > > libgcc files are generally GPL+exception, not LGPL without exception with > > a very old FSF address (config/visium/div64.c, mod64.c, > > set_trampoline_parity.c, udiv64.c, udivmod64.c, umod64.c) > > Files whose copyright/origin is clear are already GPL+exception, but these 6 > files were originally imported from Glibc so they aren't in the same basket. > > I guess I can reuse the copyright notice of soft-fp for them. Well, you'll need FSF approval to relicense - and unless you want to keep the same sources used verbatim in both places, the GPL+exception notice is the obvious one given such approval. (But in any case, putting in LGPL files without a license exception seems a bad idea, because it goes against the standard message about building your program with GCC not imposing restrictions on distribution of the resulting binary.)
> Well, you'll need FSF approval to relicense - and unless you want to keep > the same sources used verbatim in both places, the GPL+exception notice is > the obvious one given such approval. (But in any case, putting in LGPL > files without a license exception seems a bad idea, because it goes > against the standard message about building your program with GCC not > imposing restrictions on distribution of the resulting binary.) OK, I'm going to reimplement it based on libgcc2.c then.
Index: config.host =================================================================== --- config.host (revision 218617) +++ config.host (working copy) @@ -1233,6 +1233,10 @@ vax-*-netbsdelf*) ;; vax-*-openbsd*) ;; +visium-*-elf*) + extra_parts="$extra_parts crtbegin.o crtend.o crti.o crtn.o" + tmake_file="visium/t-visium t-fdpbit" + ;; xstormy16-*-elf) tmake_file="stormy16/t-stormy16 t-fdpbit" ;;
libgcc/ChangeLog 2014-12-11 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> * config.host: Add Visium support. * config/visium: New directory.