* Andrew Haley wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:05:03AM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:20:35AM CET: > >> I have a patch (accompanying those other ones on gcc-paches) to fix > >> > >> ; Warnings handled by ecj. > >> -; FIXME: document them
> >> but I did start off with the help texts from > >> <http://help.eclipse.org/stable/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/guide/jdt_api_compile.htm> > >> If not, would you think that it suffices if I reformulate the entries > >> sufficiently, or do we need to start playing the legal game, if the > >> situation is to be improved? > > All material in gcc must be assigned the the FSF by the copyright owner. > A rewrite that didn't derive from the Eclipse work would be OK. OK. Hmm, well, the way I read this, it means that I can't write this patch any more, nor can anyone do it easily who has looked at the above link. I mean, how many ways are there to express that some warning complains about, say, an unused variable? Sigh. Thanks, Ralf
