https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #14) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13) > > If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws > > specifically are getting in the way here, I would expect that the determination has been made by the FSF lawyers (but I am not an authority here, just repeating the policy put to me when I started work on the Darwin port, years ago). > that could be helpful. I won my > > election to the New Hampshire State Legislature congrats! >>so if there's any > > legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in NH, > > I'd love to know how to write it. IMO the technical issues with reusing 4.2.1 code are so significant that it would be a poor use of your time chasing a way to include stuff that we'd need to rewrite anyway (see below) > FWIW: if Iain wrote a new patch, then we don't need Apple's original work > which from my experience, frankly is messy. Indeed, it isn't suitable for the current source base - there have been a lot of changes since 4.2.1. As a secondary consideration, I also want to move Objective-C style metadata generation until after LTO has run (and Apple blocks also makes use of that style meta-data). > There's lots of stuff in there > intertwined, so going by a specification e.g. Clang's > (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockLanguageSpec.html) is probably the best > way forward in any case. Which is what I was doing + 1:1 comparison with clang's output ( on the grounds that the ABI is defined by the actual output regardless of what the documentation says ;) ) Sorry that there hasn't been much progress on this - it *was* top of my GCC11 TODO list, and then Apple Si. came along and torpedoed that...
