On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 10:40 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:31 PM Richard Sandiford > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:53 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc > > > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> It was pointed out to me off-list that config/aarch64/value-unwind.h > > >> is missing the runtime exception. It looks like a few other files > > >> are too; a fuller list is: > > >> > > >> libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h > > >> libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h > > >> libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h > > >> libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h > > >> > > >> Certainly for the aarch64 file this was simply a mistake; > > >> it seems to have been copied from the i386 version, both of which > > >> reference the runtime exception but don't actually include it. > > >> > > >> What's the procedure for fixing this? Can we treat it as a textual > > >> error or do the files need to be formally relicensed? > > > > > > I'm unsure what you mean by "formally relicensed". > > > > It seemed like there were two possibilities: the licence of the files > > is actually GPL + exception despite what the text says (the textual > > error case), or the licence of the files is plain GPL because the text > > has said so since the introduction of the files. In the latter case > > I'd have imagined that someone would need to relicense the code so > > that it is GPL + exception. > > > > > It generally is considered a textual omission. The runtime library > > > components of GCC are intended to be licensed under the runtime > > > exception, which was granted and approved at the time of introduction. > > > > OK, thanks. So would a patch to fix at least the i386 and aarch64 header > > files be acceptable? (I'm happy to fix the other two as well if that's > > definitely the right thing to do. It's just that there's more history > > involved there…) > > Please correct the text in the files. The files in libgcc used in the > GCC runtime are intended to be licensed with the runtime exception and > GCC previously was granted approval for that licensing and purpose. > > As you are asking the question, I sincerely doubt that ARM and Cavium > intended to apply a license without the exception to those files. And > similarly for Intel and FRV.
Yes I did not intend to apply without the exception. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and > usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception. > > Thanks, David
