On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 08:53 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > Peter Tanski wrote: > > StgCRun.S is done for x86 (still need to do x86_64 and ia64). Builds fine. > > > > What about using cpphs with GHC? I could set it up as either a program > > run by ghc for 'runCpp' or as a library called by runCpp. > > We've avoided cpphs so far because of the license. But if there's a good > technical reason to use it (and there does seem to be), then by all means > go ahead. > > The library route would be preferable, unless it causes any licensing > headaches.
BTW, is it the practical problem of LGPL'ed Haskell code (difficulties with dynamic linking compared to (L)GPL'ed C code like gcc, readline etc) that is the problem, or is it the MS-can't-touch-(L)GPL-with-barge-pole problem? Just want to clarify what our real licensing restrictions are, given that ghc already does bundle GPL programs (mingw) and link to LGPL libraries (readline, gmp). If it's just the practical problem that LGPL'ed Haskell code can't be so easily relinked as C code (stable ABI and all that) then we might be able to ask for a static linking exception for cpphs. Alternatively we could bundle the cpphs program rather than using the cpphs library. The cpphs library is LGPL, while the cpphs program is GPL, but then cpp is GPL too. The practical problem is the same in both cases, that MS folk can't contribute fixes for cpp(hs). Duncan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
