On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> PS. The point is that from my far point of sight/view, understanding who
> is the "GCC Steering Comittee" [other that the few people speaking as SC
> at GCC Summit] and who is the "FSF" is very unclear.
http://gcc.gnu.org/steer
On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 02:10 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > Perhaps the question becomes: whom should I ask permission to add an
> > exception to MELT code's license to permit it to generate a *texi
> > documentation, or alternatively to relicense
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:39:44AM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> ... I was told that
> generating a *texi file from (GPLv3+ licensed, FSF copyrighted) source
> code could be incompatible with the GFDL license of gccint.texi.
The SC is trying to work something out with RMS on this (more gene
On Sun, 30 May 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Perhaps the question becomes: whom should I ask permission to add an
> exception to MELT code's license to permit it to generate a *texi
> documentation, or alternatively to relicense all existing melt*texi
> files under GPL (so MELT documentation
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 16:48 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
I don't seek legal advice. I am only seeking *practical* advice.
yet, you are largely talking about legal issues in substance.
More licensing
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100529 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100529/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 16:48 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>
> > I don't seek legal advice. I am only seeking *practical* advice.
>
> yet, you are largely talking about legal issues in substance.
More licensing issues than legal
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 12:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> > Does any one know any name of a person from FSF who could give a
>> > practical advice? I know nobody in person from FSF - unless there have
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 12:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> > Does any one know any name of a person from FSF who could give a
> > practical advice? I know nobody in person from FSF - unless there have
> > been some FSF people at some GCC summit I did attend.
>
> You
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 10:39 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> [adressed to licens...@fsf.org & g...@gcc.gnu.org]
Apparently, some human at FSF got my email.
An automaton send me:
> There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your request has
> been assigned an ID of
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Does any one know any name of a person from FSF who could give a
practical advice? I know nobody in person from FSF - unless there have
been some FSF people at some GCC summit I did attend.
You really can't expect to get free legal advice from the FSF. If
you need l
Hi,
I do not have time to poke too much about this, but with whole-program build it
is easy to see what functions ends up being unused in final cc1 binary. Not
all of those are unnecesary (and some are for future use, for debugging or used
by other binaries), but it might serve as guideline to rem
This volatile_spec tells the compiler it does not touch any of the
registers so ira and reload can insert its instructions in either
place. Lying to reload is bad news.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 29, 2010, at 8:26 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Vladimir N. Makarov
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Vladimir N. Makarov
wrote:
> On 05/28/2010 12:38 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to generate vzeroupper when I know upper 128bits aren't used. I
>> can't find
>> a way to mark an pattern which zeros upper 128bits. So I added
>>
>> ;; Clear the upper 128bi
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 15:49 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> Yes. Read your copyright assignment. You have perpetual rights to do
> as you see fit with the code you wrote, even if you assigned copyright
> to the FSF.
Perhaps this might solve my GPL vs GFDL issues on the MELT branch (where
a *te
lördag 29 maj 2010 15.45.09 skrev Marc Espie:
> So, I used to contribute back to gcc regularly, got overwhelmed by
> other stuff, but I'm back.
>
> Case in point: I've added stuff to OpenBSD for secure handling of
> trampolines. Since trampolines require an executable stack, we want to
> make s
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> > Is there something I'm missing ? Is there a way I can still be the owner
> > of that patch and release it as I wish ?
>
> Yes. Read your copyright assignment. You have per
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 15:45 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> However, if I submit it, per-the-rules, against gcc-current, for it to be
> integrated, I need to waive my rights (I have a (c) assignment already on
> record at the FSF, so a priori, I don't need more paperwork).
>
> If I recall correctly,
> If I recall correctly, it means I transfer all possible rights to the FSF.
> I no longer own my patch.
>
> Then it gets released as part of gcc-current, under the GPLv3.
>
> If I get things correctly *I can no longer release it under GPLv2+*, as we
> do for our mutant fork of gcc 4.2.1.
>
> Is
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Is there something I'm missing ? Is there a way I can still be the owner
> of that patch and release it as I wish ?
Yes. Read your copyright assignment. You have perpetual rights to do
as you see fit with the code you wrote, even if you assig
So, I used to contribute back to gcc regularly, got overwhelmed by
other stuff, but I'm back.
Case in point: I've added stuff to OpenBSD for secure handling of trampolines.
Since trampolines require an executable stack, we want to make sure we don't
have trampolines all over the place, hence a -ft
On 29/05/2010 11:55, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> What it really is is, I don't see the consistency in disregarding an
>> explicit cast to void, yet permitting a workaround such as an inlined no-op
>> function that casts the parameter to void. I
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 01:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn
>>> there is *no* circumstances
>>> under which ignoring the return from *any* function is *always* a bug.
>
>> For practical purposes, it is always a bug to ignore the return value
>>
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 01:17, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn writes:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2010 22:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
The warn_unused_result extension was implemented specifically to catch
security problems. Permitting developers
Dave Korn writes:
> On 29/05/2010 01:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn
>>> there is *no* circumstances
>>> under which ignoring the return from *any* function is *always* a bug.
>
>> For practical purposes, it is always a bug to ignore the return value
>> of realloc (I disregard the unu
Dear Sir,
[adressed to licens...@fsf.org & g...@gcc.gnu.org]
[I assume you understand both GPL vs GFDL licenses & software
architecture]
I am a (write after approval) contributor to GCC, and the author of the
MELT branch of GCC (on which I am working since 2008 at least). So far,
I am the only c
26 matches
Mail list logo
