On Wed, 17 May 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Hi, > | > | Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I > | asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math > | transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute > | them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that > | request and so, after doing the emergency-removal of the wrongly > | licensed double parts from libgcc-math I am going to remove the float > | parts as well. This renders the SSE2 abi math functions support > | unusable, so I am going forward and remove the following middle-end > | patches as well: > > Sigh. > > [...] > > | As we're far into stage3 now I propose to remove libgcc-math from the > | mainline again and re-instantiate it at the beginning of stage1 again. > > Please clarify things for me. > Does that mean that in the future we (GG) have to develop our own > codes independently of glibc? Or is that a no-no-no end?
As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception like in this case). What is fine as far as I understand is extend/modify glibc itself to suit our needs - which is of course usually pointless because GCC is not in a glibc-only world. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell / SUSE Labs
