[gnu.org #1880318] Antoni Boucher, modified employer disclaimer

[Craig Topham via RT via Gcc]

On 2023-02-28 17:44:55, boua...@zoho.com wrote:
> Hi.
> Here is the document signed.
> Thank you.
> 
My apologies, I was unexpectedly out the last couple of days. This has been 
resolved and you are clear to contribute with the new employer disclaimer in 
place.

Thank you for your patience and I appreciate you following through.

~Craig


> On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 15:29 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > On 2023-02-27 10:33:46, boua...@zoho.com wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > Any update on this?
> > > Regards.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes. The adaptation seems fine indeed, but there a couple of small
> > issues with the text:
> > 
> > then the Free Software Foundation and the general public will be
> > permanently and irrevocably licensed solely as necessary to use,
> > distribute, and permit modifications by anyone, the contributions as
> > originally authored by Antoni Bouche in
> > these works in the Released Categories of programs they enhance,
> > withoutroyalty or limitation, the subject matter of the dominating
> > interest.
> > 
> > -- there should be a "to" after anyone and I would probably leave out
> > the comma too.
> > -- Boucher
> > -- without royalty
> > 
> > If you can get these corrected and print/sign the disclaimer we
> > should be good to go.
> > 
> > ~Craig
> > 
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 21:51 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > > They change the text.
> > > > I attached the new version.
> > > > Does that look correct?
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 16:01 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-30 09:27:02, boua...@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > Any news on this?
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 13:58 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-12-13 10:24:30, boua...@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > Is there any progress here?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have made some progress. However, there is some other
> > > > > language
> > > > > that concerns us. In the second to last paragraph it reads,
> > > > > "...solely as necessary to use the contributions as originally
> > > > > authored...".
> > > > > 
> > > > > As stated, it would only cover your original contributions
> > > > > unedited.
> > > > > Therefore, versions of your contributions edited by other
> > > > > developers
> > > > > would not be covered by this disclaimer. Can you request to
> > > > > have
> > > > > this
> > > > > language changed?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Assuming this can be corrected there is no other language in
> > > > > the
> > > > > disclaimer that concerns us, so we could proceed with accepting
> > > > > this
> > > > > disclaimer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you again for working through this process.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thank you for the ping. I have no new updates at this time
> > > > > > > except
> > > > > > > that the removal of the problematic sentence allows us to
> > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > other language in the disclaimer. I am glad to say yours is
> > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be reviewed. Please feel free to ping me at any time for an
> > > > > > > update.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 12:08 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > > > > > They're ok with removing that sentence.
> > > > > > > > > Do you have any news from the legal counsel?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 16:02 -0500, Craig Topham via RT
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-22 09:52:51, boua...@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > > > > I got the answer to that question from my company:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >    Since this is an FSF form, once we sign the
> > > > > > > > > > > disclaimer, it
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >    binding between the parties even though there is
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > signature
> > > > > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > >    for FSF. The language itself would be sufficient
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > binding
> > > > > > > > > > >    between the parties.
> > > > > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for clarifying. I know we will be able to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > this, but that sentence as written would allow
> > > > > > > > > > ServiceNow
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > violate
> > > > > > > > > > the licenses of GNU packages while preventing the FSF
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > enforcing
> > > > > > > > > > the GPL. We simply can't agree to that. I understand
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > intent
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >

Re: [GSoC] Introduction and query on LTO object emmission project

[Jan Hubicka via Gcc]

Hello,
> Hi! I've been interested in compiler development for a while, and would love 
> to
> work with any of you as part of GSoC, or even just as a side-project on my 
> own.
> 
> I'm an 18 year-old student going into university next year with a passion for 
> all
> things open source and low level. I consider myself fluent in c, and 
> proficient
> with c++, rust, and x86 assembly, but unfamiliar with practical compiler 
> design.
> I have done some reading on the theoretical aspects of compilers, however.
> 
> While I haven't worked with the GCC community before, I have worked with the 
> linux
> community and have made several small patches there, so I am familiar with 
> both
> email-based workflows and the principles of open-source development. 
> 
> This summer, I'm looking for more experience working on larger projects, as 
> well
> as getting into real compilers.
> 
> Of particular interest to me is the project idea labelled "Bypass assembler 
> when
> generating LTO object files." I see that the project was taken last year, but
> I can find no sign of any changes committed to trunk 
> (`git shortlog --after=2022-01-01 | grep -i -E "lto|assembl(er|y)"` shows 
> nothing
> related to this project) and no sign of any needed change made in the code.
> Is this project still available?

yes, the project is available and Maritn Jambor  and me
would be happy to mentor it. Please add me and Martin to CC of any
emails on the proejt.

I think it would be good to start by looking at the original work in
progress patch (linked from the task description, an updated version is
here https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-May/238670.html).   Overall
struture of the LTO optimization is described in paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2196

One problem is that the object files produced by libiberty/simple-object.c
(which is the low-level API used by the LTO code)
are missing some information (such as the architecture info and symbol
table) and API of the simple object will need to be extended to handle
that.  So I think getting familiar with simple-object.c and the
elf/mach/coff handlers of it would be a good initital step.  It will be
necessary to add API to specify the architecture and symbols in the
symbol table so the resulting object files are recognized by linker.

Second part would be handling of output of dwarf debug information, so
it may make sense to also take a quick look on its documentation.  The
on-disk representation is actually not too hard and it should be
possible to make a direct writer.

Jan
> 
> I'm also willing to work on other projects, ideally in the middle/backend, but
> currently I have only been experimenting with the gcc/[lto,data]-streamer* 
> files.
> If anyone has a small or medium sized project idea, please feel free to let 
> me know.
> 
> 
> I look forward to working with all of you in the future,
> 
> Peter Lafreniere
> 
> 

Re: MicroBlaze symver attribute support

[Vincent Fazio via Gcc]

All

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 7:35 PM Michael Eager  wrote:

> On 2/20/23 06:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 7:56 AM Vincent Fazio via Gcc  > > wrote:
> >
> > Michael, all,
> >
> > Regarding:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101766
> > 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102110
> > 
> >
> > If I understand correctly, since the GCC MicroBlaze targets generate
> ELF
> > images, it would seem there's no technical reason why `__attribute__
> > ((symver ...))` cannot be supported?
> >
> > The issue seems to be that the MicroBlaze targets in config.gcc do
> not
> > include elfos.h
> > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config.gcc#L2369
> > 
> >
> > Which defines `ASM_OUTPUT_SYMVER_DIRECTIVE`
> >
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config/elfos.h#L259 <
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config/elfos.h#L259>
> >
> > Which is necessary for
> > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/varasm.cc#L6260
> > 
> >
> > Changing the targets to include elfos.h leads to a number of
> > conflicts with
> > the target specific header (config/microblaze/microblaze.h).
> >
> > Should `ASM_OUTPUT_SYMVER_DIRECTIVE` be copied into
> > config/microblaze/microblaze.h or should the MicroBlaze targets and
> > header
> > be reworked to support elfos.h?
> >
> >
> > IMO reworked to include elfos.h. During the RTEMS port, we noticed that
> > some quirks on the microblaze gcc because it isn't using elfos.h. This
> > likely
> > will mean it will be updated as a side-effect of normal GCC maintenance
> > instead of being an odd singleton which doesn't share.
> >
> >
> > I'm asking because I've seen a number of projects run into this
> > issue (xz,
> > elfutils, libfuse, libkcapi, cryptsetup).
> >
> >
> > And RTEMS.
> >
> > --joel
>
>
> Joel -- do you have a patch to add elfos.h to MicroBlaze?
>
>

I have a very crude commit here off of 11.3.0:

https://github.com/vfazio/gcc/commit/e65fea47b881b136f6753001791ebf68a4874dd6

I've tested it as a patch on Buildroot's toolchain and dropped the patch we
used to hack
around the previous lack of symver support for XZ. I was able to boot the
resultant kernel
and rootfs via qemu-system-microblaze and the symbol versions XZ expects
are included
based on discussions with the maintainer
https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/pull/32#issuecomment-1424531920

I doubt the work is "complete" but it's a starting point.

-- 
> Michael Eager
>

gcc-11-20230303 is now available

[GCC Administrator via Gcc]

Snapshot gcc-11-20230303 is now available on
  https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20230303/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.

This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch 
releases/gcc-11 revision d1f7e12b136b61ea37d96cb12d2c3956e28b9cca

You'll find:

 gcc-11-20230303.tar.xz   Complete GCC

  SHA256=20fd8b12f846ab942b60f1979b1a14b058c46b167b832c46edb78a0ada7f3738
  SHA1=ddcc704ea99e9f47152bb7066c98df5542a55cb5

Diffs from 11-20230224 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory.

When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-11
link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list.  Please do not use
a snapshot before it has been announced that way.

M

[Tammi Pierce via Gcc]

W I’maI hope w
S

[GSOC] Looking for small patch/project to work on

[Rishi Raj via Gcc]

Hi everyone,

My name is Rishi Raj, and I am a third-year undergraduate studying Computer
Science and Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur in
India. I wish to participate in this year's GSOC with GCC.

My progress so far:

   1. Successfully built the GCC from source using the installing gcc
   guide. (I will run the test suite today.)
   2. Read about different configuration options during installations and
   also went through the gcc-newbies-guide, which was an exciting read and
   provided an overview of how to proceed in gcc-contribution. I want to
   extend my appreciation to David for this.

After reading about the suggested projects described on GCC's GSOC page, I
found "Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files" and "C++:
Implement compiler built-in traits for the standard library traits"
interesting. Currently, I am examining the preliminary patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-09/msg00340.html for the first project. I
can work on a small project/patch after this in a day or two. I would
greatly appreciate your suggestions for the same.

I have taken compiler theory and laboratory courses as a part of my
institute curriculum. In the laboratory, we designed a tiny-c compiler (a
subset of GCC). In theory, I learned about different phases of
compilations, various optimization techniques, etc.

Please find my course website link for a detailed overview:
https://cse.iitkgp.ac.in/~bivasm/compiler2022.html#Lecture

This course was the starting point of my interest in compiler development,
and I want to take it further by making meaningful contributions to GCC. I
hope to make some significant contributions to GCC this summer and in the
future. I would appreciate any suggestions on taking on a small
patch/project or delving deeper into the projects I am interested in
pursuing.


Best regards,

Rishi Raj