On Mon, 15 Dec 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Do you have a reason for using fp-bit instead of soft-fp? > > Apart from the obvious historical reason, probably not, but recently added > ports (Blackfin, Epiphany) also use it so I'm not sure we want to change it.
I doubt they have any good reason for using it. > > libgcc files are generally GPL+exception, not LGPL without exception with > > a very old FSF address (config/visium/div64.c, mod64.c, > > set_trampoline_parity.c, udiv64.c, udivmod64.c, umod64.c) > > Files whose copyright/origin is clear are already GPL+exception, but these 6 > files were originally imported from Glibc so they aren't in the same basket. > > I guess I can reuse the copyright notice of soft-fp for them. Well, you'll need FSF approval to relicense - and unless you want to keep the same sources used verbatim in both places, the GPL+exception notice is the obvious one given such approval. (But in any case, putting in LGPL files without a license exception seems a bad idea, because it goes against the standard message about building your program with GCC not imposing restrictions on distribution of the resulting binary.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
