Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:59 PM Thomas Schwinge > <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> Ping. For easy reference I've again attached Richard Sandiford's >> "libgcc: Add missing runtime exception notices". >> >> On 2021-07-12T17:34:09+0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches >> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: >> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford >> >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >> >>> David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> > 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 >> >>> >> > <g...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >> 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. >> >>> >> >>> FTR, I think only Linaro (rather than Arm) touched the aarch64 file. >> >>> >> >>> > The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and >> >>> > usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception. >> >>> >> >>> Ack. Is the patch below OK for trunk and branches? >> >> >> >> I'm not certain whom you are asking for approval, >> > >> > I was assuming it would need a global reviewer. >> > >> >> but it looks good to me. >> > >> > Thanks. >> >> So in addition to David, would a Global Reviewer please review this? > > OK.
Thanks, now pushed to GCC 9+. Richard
