Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> writes: > The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files > that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file > is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is > implemented as a libgcc function all by gcc, but if the multiply is > implemented by gcc with straightline assembly code, and there is no other > use of the Runtime library in this file, it will not qualify. > There are likely a large number of files in newlib that will not have a > Runtime library dependence at all on any target.
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license. > Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language > which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at > libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors . > That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help here, > since we want to allow people to link programs containing non-GPL-compatible > code simultanously against libgloss and libgcc. I don't see anything which prohibits them from doing so. The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler. What the runtime library license restricts is linking libgcc with proprietary code which was compiled by a mix of gcc and proprietary code to produce some program, and then distributing the program without distributing source code. Ian
