On 6/1/2021 5:22 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:02 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright f
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:02 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundatio
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 7:58 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn v
On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to be developed, distrib
On June 1, 2021 7:30:54 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm via Gcc
wrote:
>On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate
>> as
>> an autonomous project.
>>
>> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the re
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:20 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "DJ Delorie"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
>
> > > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate
> as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Founda
A file should be kept with the author name, date and changes done by each
contributor.
Including this is the source code would make the history too long. Otherwise,
such information
can be put at the end of the file.
- Christopher Dimech
Society has became too quick to pass judgement and
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , "Jakub Jelinek"
> , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > > It is a real probl
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Aut
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Authors" should not
include a date - that's following the recommendati
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchai
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> My interpretation of this would be for modifications rather than original
> sources, so v3+ applies to unmodified sources (for obvious reasons, given
> that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a
> copyright holder I can release my m
But GPL3 has been a good license for GCC; giving up the theoretical ability
to change the license (other than to a later GPL) does not seem like a
significant loss.
That will cause trouble incorperating code or documentation snippets
from the code base into the GCC manual; which is not un
> So that cannot be the rationale for this.
I do not want to contribute my work to a project that requires FSF
copyright assignment to the rest of the project, even if it wouldn't
be required for (some of) my own contributions. In any case,
historically libstdc++ *does* require an assignment. If y
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:09 AM
> From: "Paul Smith"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> > of
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > It is a real problem. As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> > removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> > because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> > person and who I a
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> > any later version.
> >
> > To me that m
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed, dist
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> of any change in license.
>
> Quoting Jason Merrill:
>
> "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> to be a GPL v4, we could move t
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Paul Koning"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> > That seems to create a possible future complicat
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> > Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> What does that mean? FSF is a well defin
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed, dist
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc
wrote:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Softw
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
>From the GCC mission statement:
- Other components
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> That seems to create a possible future complication. Prior to this
> change, the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as
> replacing the GPL 2 license by GPL 3. With the policy change, that
> would no longer be possible, unle
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:14 AM Jose E. Marchesi
wrote:
>
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Fou
Paul Koning via Gcc writes:
>> GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed to be a
>> GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from anyone.
>
> I don't think that is what the license says. It says:
>
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modif
"Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc" writes:
>> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> an autonomous project.
>>
>> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> will continu
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:25:16AM -0400, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
> T
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> | From: Mark Wielaard
>>
>> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
>> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>>
>> Agreed. I also agree with the r
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licen
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Mark Wielaard
>
> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>
> Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
>
> (Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contr
> > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered by
> > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move code
> > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave
> > only permission to license under the open source license "indicated in
I am pleased to see a change based on my recommendation. The FSF should not
refrain
from accepting contributions based on modified versions of software in instances
where the developer of the modified work is unable to get a copyright assignment
of the code, but are legally allowed to use a compa
| From: Mark Wielaard
| This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
| Why was there no public discussion on this?
Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
(Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contributed to other
copylefted code bases.)
It is important that the pool be
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
That is true for all GNU project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 16:24 +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU Toolchain
Authors" sounds like on
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:15 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the require
Hi David,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> Genera
* David Edelsohn via Gcc:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be develope
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software F
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-announce On Behalf Of Richard
> Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2021 4:42 AM
> To: gcc-annou...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; info-...@gnu.org
> Subject: [EXT] GCC 9.4 Released
>
> [Actual Sender is gcc-announce-boun...@gcc.gnu.org]
>
> The GNU Compil
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the
Hello,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/31/21 5:49 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello Martin,
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> I've made quite some progress with the porting of the documentation and
> >> I would like to present it to the community now:
> >>
On Sun, 2021-05-30 at 20:38 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> hello
Hi Ankur, sorry about the delayed reply (it was a long weekend here in
the US)
> I was successfully able to build gcc with bootstrapping disabled and
> using xgcc directly from the build directory instead ( reducing the
> overall buil
On 6/1/21 9:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:33 AM Martin Liška wrote:
@Richi: Can you please reply to this email?
Not sure what I should add here? Honza suggested to mangle the
promoted symbol names.
Sure and I sent a patch for that.
I don't
really like the idea to
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/1/21 9:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:33 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> @Richi: Can you please reply to this email?
> >
> > Not sure what I should add here? Honza suggested to mangle the
> > promoted symbol
The GNU Compiler Collection version 9.4 has been released.
GCC 9.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 9 branch containing important
fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 9.3 with more than 190 bugs
fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the WWW and FTP servers
Status
==
The GCC 9 branch is again open for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2 304
P3 26 + 3
P4 173 -
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:33 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> @Richi: Can you please reply to this email?
Not sure what I should add here? Honza suggested to mangle the
promoted symbol names. I don't
really like the idea to compile multiple TUs into one object. Also
+LTO_LINKER_FLAGS = -flto=auto --
@Richi: Can you please reply to this email?
On 5/21/21 10:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/20/21 2:54 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:34 PM Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
I've got a patch candidate that leverages partial linking for a couple of
selected object files.
I'm se
PING^1
On 5/21/21 10:29 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/20/21 5:55 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Quick solution is to also modify partitioner to use the local symbol
names when doing incremental linking (those mixing in source code and
random seeds) to avoid clashes.
Good hint. I added hash based on ob
On 5/31/21 5:49 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello Martin,
On Mon, 31 May 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
I've made quite some progress with the porting of the documentation and
I would like to present it to the community now:
https://splichal.eu/scripts/sphinx/
Note the documentation is automatically
56 matches
Mail list logo
