On 17 Mar 2006 23:27:35 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > | > I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve > | > thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can make > | > modification to libgcc-math so that we can't advantage of it. Now, I > | > understand that we cannot make modification to libgcc-math without > | > modifying GLIBC? Is that correct. > | > | Yes, that is correct. It would take additional special dispensation > | from the FSF to modify the GLIBC code. RMS wants such modifications to > | be submitted upstream first, to avoid forks. You could ask RMS for that > | additional permission, if you want. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > | Please do not ask me to interpret or justify all of the rules; I don't > | understand the issues sufficiently well. I am just passing along the > | results of a long discussion with RMS on the SC list. > > I understand :-) > > Did I know this implication, and given past difficulty to communicate > with GLIBC people, I'm not sure I did the right thing (e.g. being > enthousiastic about libgcc-math).
I'll try my best. And I take it as granted that I can turn to RMS in the case we only get the usual reactions like http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-07/msg00008.html (not that I didn't try to avoid creating libgcc-math in the first place...) Richard.
