On 2025-04-24 11:07, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
On 4/23/25 01:17, Jing Luo wrote:That "No." is a GPL violation right there, as I understand it. Can the Chinese original be read as "GCC is unmodified from the GNU version" or are they attempting to minimize the fact that they distribute a modified *compiler*?[...](a rough translation from Chinese) [Q3] Is the source code of Spacemit's gcc available[A3] No. But [we] didn't make a lot of changes on gcc, basically it's [the same as] the open source (sic.) version. After all, the only thing added was assembler support, i.e. changing binutils. The patches supporting the instruction will be ready to be released, so that everyone who build their own toolchain can also patch [it] themselves.Oh well. [7] https://forum.spacemit.com/t/topic/387
The latter one I think. "didn't make a lot of changes" = "made some changes".
GNU binutils is another package, but could be conflated as part of GCC because GCC uses binutils to generate binary output, and binary distributions of GCC therefore normally include binutils.This leads to a possible scenario: they are distributing a build of unmodified GCC with their patched binutils bundled. Is the promised binutils patch available?
No, there is simply no source tarballs or patches for the binaries (gcc+binutils) they distribute.
-- Jing Luo About me: https://jing.rocks/about/ GPG Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
