Michael Eager wrote:
Saying that license is an interoperability issue doesn't make it one.
No, saying that is not what makes it so, that's true.
However, the fact is that licensing *is* an interoperability issue,
since it has to do with what units can be mixed together in a
particular situati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32746
is really caused by a combination of two things
First is_gimple_min_invariant in try_to_simplify where it chooses
DECL_INITIAL should be valid_gimple_expression_p instead.
However, even if i fix this, the testcase still fails because
valid_gimpl
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Speaking as an individual developer who nonetheless needs to follow
his company's policies on licensing, I need it to be *absolutely
clear* whether a piece of software can be used under GPLv2 or not.
If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
where
Jim Wilson wrote:
This does mean that you can't build a 128-bit target compiler on a
32-bit host, but that hasn't been a problem yet.
And now that we allow HOST_WIDE_INT to be defined as long long, this
shouldn't be a problem any more either. A 32-bit host with 2 long longs
gets us up to 1
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:17AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> >Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> >
> >>One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> >>license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
> >>should become 4.3.0.
> >
>
Michael Eager wrote:
Is it guaranteed to hold all target integer sizes? How
does this work for 32-bit hosts and 64-bit targets?
RTL and tree constants were defined from the beginning as two
HOST_WIDE_INTs. This was necessary to bootstrap long long support on
32-bit systems before most compi
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070713 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070713/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
As a (non-developer) user, may I humbly submit a slightly different view:
The change of license is an Event, which needs to be marked in concrete by
a version number change. All future mainline development will be under the
GPLv3. However, there are many people who (due to legal or commercial
pres
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
I've started work on a project to turn GCC into an incremental
compiler.
Sounds neat. :-)
The basic idea of the project is to run GCC as a server (similar in a
way to the old compile server branch) and try to minimize the amount
of re-compilatio
GCC 4.2.1 RC2 is now available from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2.1-RC-20070712
Unless severe problems are found with this release candidates, this will
become the official GCC 4.2.1 release in the middle of next week.
(I'm sorry it took me longer than I hoped to build RC2; I had a co
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See, I'm not diminishing the importance of licensing issues, I'm just
saying it's legally irresponsible to sit back and *not* even watch
what's going on in the development of the license
Everybody's been watching.
I've started work on a project to turn GCC into an incremental
compiler. This project is still in an investigative stage but I
thought I would post some of my plans and ideas before making a
branch.
The primary goal of this project is improving the developer user
experience by decreasing turnarou
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the opt
Robert Dewar wrote:
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
should become 4.3.0.
I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty
important one for many
Can you read and write Dbase files in GNU fortran and how to access such
multiple files in succession one after the other?
Mahendra K. Bansal, Ph. D., P. E.
Head, Data Bank
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94676
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Call: 402 471 3964
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> > license is changing a feature.
>
> Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
>
(Zdenek, I CC'ed you because I need some clarification regarding your
loop-structures-preserving project; please see below)
Hello,
I'd like to provide an update on the ddg-exporting project and request
some more comments. Ian, thanks for your feedback and for catching
redundant code.
Testing o
Russ Allbery schrieb:
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
succession of releases would
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
> release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
> The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
> succession of releases would probably hint at t
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you typically would wait till the license change was definite.
It seems to me that it would be saner to not only keep up with the
developments of the license, but also get one's major customers awar
Hi,
Thanks very much for your help. I have fixed the problem of the abs
insn with HI and QI mode as you advised.
Best regards
Maggie
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means getting lawyers involved, and for sure you don't want
> them wasting time tracking an 18 month period in which the license
> keeps changing.
Yet somehow a number of large stakeholders not only tracked the
license development ov
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Anyone who had their heads in the sand for the past 18 months when
GPLv3 was being publicly discussed and developed, or wasn't at the GCC
Summit last year when I mentioned that the FSF would most certainly
want to upgrade the license of every project whose copyright it hel
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had their heads in the san
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had t
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2 should
become 4.3.0.
I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty
important one for many users.
Hi David,
2. Turn off public access to the code while changing license text in the
source.
This is not necessary. (I am assuming here that by "public access to
the code" you mean access to the svn repository, not access to the
various release tarballs). The repository sources are not an of
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch to GCC 4.3.
What would have been GCC 4.2.2 will instead be GCC 4.3.3, to try to
emphasize the GPLv3 switch. The GCC mainline will then be GCC 4.4.
This seems to confabulate the meaning of v
On Jul 12, 2007, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release. The FSF will permit
> backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed
> to GPLv2, as part of that release.
> 3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch
On Jul 12, 2007, Benjamin Smedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously the FSF can relicense any code they want to GPL3... that doesn't
> mean that this community couldn't decide to only accept patches to the
> GCC4.2 branch that are licensed under the GPL2+.
This wouldn't change the fact that
On Jul 12, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would be chaotic. Acme Co's version of gcc-3.4 might be GPLv2
> while MegaCorp's gcc-3.4 might be GPLv3.
This is already true today. Even if MegaCorp doesn't make any changes
to the code, the code is available under GPLv2+, which
31 matches
Mail list logo
