On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 02:05:45PM -0800, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > What are the implications (GPL-wise) of using CGEN-generated files in > > gcc? Specifically, I'm working on a second attempt to contribute the > > MeP port, and its intrinsics are CGEN-generated (and there are a *lot* > > of them - most opcodes have an intrinsic). I'd rather not have to > > manually enter all that info twice (there are VLIW tags, latency info, > > etc - for each intrinsic) > > I believe the source code (i.e., what you'd change to modify the > intrinsics) needs including in the GCC release tarballs. I don't think > CGEN itself needs including, any more than OCaml needs including because > the ARM NEON intrinsic generators are written in OCaml.
I agree. The GPL says that the source code is defined as the preferred form for modification: including only the generated C code would be a GPL violation. I think it should be handled in the same way that bison parsers are handled: put both the input and the output in release tarballs, etc. There's no more reason to include cgen than to include bison.
