Hello Jeff,
> I'm pleased to announce that Iain Sandoe has been appointed as a maintainer
> for the Objective-C and Objective-C++ front-ends.
Thanks!
Let's hope there's time to fit some modernisation in the next stage #1.
Iain
> Iain, please add yourself as a maintainer
I'm pleased to announce that Iain Sandoe has been appointed as a
maintainer for the Objective-C and Objective-C++ front-ends.
Iain, please add yourself as a maintainer for those front-ends in the
MAINTAINERS file.
Jeff
On 19 Jan 2012, at 06:13, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
>
> On 19 Jan 2012, at 01:05, Nicola Pero wrote:
>
>>> This patch completes the removal of the public part of the
>>> Traditional Objective-C runtime API from libobjc.
>>>
>>> From now o
On 19 Jan 2012, at 01:05, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> This patch completes the removal of the public part of the
>> Traditional Objective-C runtime API from libobjc.
>>
>> From now on, the only supported API is the "Modern" API. :-)
>
>> Nicola, this
> This patch completes the removal of the public part of the
> Traditional Objective-C runtime API from libobjc.
>
> From now on, the only supported API is the "Modern" API. :-)
> Nicola, this is causing trouble for Fedora. The Fedora maintainer has
> been advised b
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 08:37 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> This patch completes the removal of the public part of the
>> Traditional Objective-C runtime API from libobjc.
>>
>> From now on, the only supported API is the "M
On 06/07/2011 08:37 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> This patch completes the removal of the public part of the
> Traditional Objective-C runtime API from libobjc.
>
> From now on, the only supported API is the "Modern" API. :-)
Nicola, this is causing trouble for Fedora. The
uot;GCC Development"
Subject: Re: PATCH committed: 64-bit Apple Objective-C runtime support
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
>
> Thanks for
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
>
> Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
> compiler that works aga
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
compiler that works again on darwin.
That said, if people have any Objective-C codes, feel free to beat on
my PC and I want to compile to practise
> Objective-C language. One of my purposes is training to become a Apple
> developer.
>
> What file I should download, (unzip), objc or objcp?, what's the difference
> between these two ones?
I'm not sure what files you mean, bu
Dear GNU managers,
I have installed gcc-4.5.0. on my PC and I want to compile to practise
Objective-C language. One of my purposes is training to become a Apple
developer.
What file I should download, (unzip), objc or objcp?, what's the difference
between these two ones?
Thank you very
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ rec
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ rec
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html would make more sense!
g...@gnu.org, "Mike Stump" ,
develo...@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk
Subject: Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes
Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone
Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
Those of us hoping to play with the new Objective-C want to know. ;-)
Thank you,
Ed
Thanks Joseph
Is it confirmed that this is the opinion of the C++ FE maintainers as well ?
Can we get that clarified ? Do they want to review Objective-C++ patches ?
(I'm still personally of the opinion the Objective-C++ maintainer should
approve Objective-C++
patches, but Mike tells me
>> For example, if I post a patch that changes a piece of code in
>> gcc/c-parser.c which is only ever used if (c_dialect_objc ()), then I
>> assume that it is part of the Objective-C front-end, and the
>> Objective-C/Objective-C++ maintainers are in charge of appr
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Nicola Pero wrote:
> For example, if I post a patch that changes a piece of code in
> gcc/c-parser.c which is only ever used if (c_dialect_objc ()), then I
> assume that it is part of the Objective-C front-end, and the
> Objective-C/Objective-C++ maintainers a
Most of the Objective-C/Objective-C++ parser code is in files shared with the
C/C++ frontend,
hence I'm confused about who approves what.
For example, if I post a patch that changes a piece of code in gcc/c-parser.c
which is only
ever used if (c_dialect_objc ()), then I assume that it is
On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> FSF *policy* (not the GPL) requires that all files have "GPLv3-or-later"
> license. The question is what permission you need to change a file
> that has a "GPLv2-or-later" license into the required one.
None, the GPL v2 clause grants this right
> I do not understand the difference between "redistributing a file
> under a GPLv3-or-later license", and distributing it under a license
> that is GPLv3-or-later".
I'm not sure what the two things you list are, but the two that we're
talking about are:
(1) Distributing a GPLv2-or-later file as
On 9/15/2010 4:59 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't mean to keep this thread alive longer, but that answer is
not to the question we've been discussing. OF COURSE you can
"redistribute" a GPLv2-or-later file under GPLv3-or-later. That's
never been the question!
The question is whether you can
> FYI, quoting Brett Smith on this issue (with permission) below.
>
> When the copyright holder of a program gives you permission to
> "redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either
> version 2 of the Licen
[ about modifying the license of "GPLv2 or later" or similarly licensed
code ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:15:57AM CEST:
> * Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST:
> > > > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
> > >
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Kevin André wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc woul
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
>>> replace the current frontends entirely.
>>
>> Ye
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> >>
> >>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
> >>> motivation for d
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
>>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
>>
>> From th
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>>
In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
motivation fo
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
>>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
>>
>> From the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
>
> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
>
> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
understanding is that clang C++ suppo
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
replace the current frontends entirely.
Ian
On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>>> I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
>>> understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is
>>> a benefit there, but only a
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> By that rule, it is clearly beneficial for some gcc users to compile
> Fortran using dragon-egg to take advantage of OpenCL. Ergo, dragon-egg
> is beneficial to GCC.
That's pretty special purpose, though. Not something I would personally
recommend that gcc develope
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>> I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
>> understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is
>> a benefit there, but only a temporary one. I don't see a real benefit
>> going forward
On 13 September 2010 23:41, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>>
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> I think you are again talking about user benefits. You don't see a
> (user) benefit in gcc->llvm because you perhaps do not use the
> features that LLVM has and GCC doesn't. But users of gcc->llvm surely
> see a large benefit if people
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
>>> see yet how GCC developers can c
On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>
>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
>> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
>
On 9/13/10 2:04 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Therefore, I see a clear benefit to clang->gcc, but I
do not see a clear benefit to gcc->llvm.
Suppose you have large Fortran applications, and want to accelerate
parts of them on graphics processors.
Several of the OpenCL implementations use LLVM for
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
> the other.
It seems to me that at the present moment LLVM
On 13 September 2010 16:55, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
>> > lose from llvm-gcc...
>>
>> What will
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
> > lose from llvm-gcc...
>
> What will be gained and what will be lost in your opinion?
>
On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>>
>> On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
>>> wrote:
>>
>> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this cou
On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of
Jack Howarth writes:
> [...]
>Alternatively, perhaps Apple could clarify their own license file to
> clearly indicate that they do not prohibit their GPLv2 code from being
> relicensed as GPLv3-only code. After all, this doesn't really change
> the licensing status of Apple's changes in thei
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST:
> > > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
> > > to answer such questions as this.
> >
> > Do you have a quote for that, please?
>
> How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
I've asked for yo
On 11/09/2010 23:17, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
>>> to answer such questions as this.
>> Do you have a quote for that, please?
>
> How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
By using a null string, of course!
cheers
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 06:17:47PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
> > > to answer such questions as this.
> >
> > Do you have a quote for that, please?
>
> How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
>
> The FSF has c
> > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
> > to answer such questions as this.
>
> Do you have a quote for that, please?
How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
The FSF has consistently refused to answer questions of the form "if I did
XYZ, would it viol
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:01:56PM CEST:
> > Please ask the FSF legal dept. to clarify the situation once and for
> > all, they should be able to provide you with a binding (as for GCC)
> > answer within a short time frame.
>
> It's my understanding that FSF legal departme
> Please ask the FSF legal dept. to clarify the situation once and for
> all, they should be able to provide you with a binding (as for GCC)
> answer within a short time frame.
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
Hello,
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 01:18:10PM CEST:
> > That means, we at our option can choose to release under GPL v3,
> > exclusively, if we wanted.
>
> I disagree, as I said.
>
> My interpretation of that sentence is that "when you redistribute
> this, you must give the p
> Well, the words on their distribution say exactly this:
>
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later
> version.
>
>
On Sep 10, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I disagree. The copyright holder has decided that they want people to
> (among other things) allow people to distribute under GPLv2. We can't
> take that away without the permission of that holder.
Well, the words on their distribution say exa
> > The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
> > FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could
> > change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
> > license (we can for code that HAS been assigned).
>
> Ah, but the
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
> FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could
> change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
> license (we can for cod
> The code in the apple branch on the fsf server *is* copyright assigned to
> the FSF.
Right. That's why a previous email in this thread said there was no
problem with them. I thought the remaining discussion was about
files in OTHER places.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
>>
>> The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
>> take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
>
> The fact that the licenses are COMPA
> > I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
>
> The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
> take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
FSF wants "GPLv3 or later"
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work as
On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> More seriously, the issue is copyright law. In order to write a
> front-end for GCC right now (or for a GCC front end to use another
> backend), you have to use a sufficient number of header files and
> interfaces of GCC that there's no question
On Sep 10, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to take
that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
On 10 September 2010 15:25, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
>> > front ends, back ends, and optimizers.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> May I ask why would GCC want clang as a frontend? Would it supersede the
> current C frontend?
I suppose not, but it could supersede the ObjC and ObjC++ front ends.
And from there -- who knows.
Ciao!
Steven
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end.
>
> Oh,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >
> > But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
> > front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
> > thing nor any scheme th
On 10 September 2010 15:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
>> wrote:
> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> proprietary front-ends or proprietary b
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>>> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
>>> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>>>
>>> Why is this case different
On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner wrote:
>
> But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
> front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
> thing nor any scheme that resulted in having any file that could be
> used for such a purpose.
As far
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
>> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>>
>> Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
>
> It's the question of what o
> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>
> Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
It's the question of what one means by "plug-in interface". If you
view it as no differe
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing th
On 10 September 2010 14:22, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> > Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "frontend plugins" possible
>> > and plugging clang.
>>
>> I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
>
> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> propri
> > Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "frontend plugins" possible
> > and plugging clang.
>
> I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GC
On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work a
> So is it Ok to import testcases (in this case, from Apple's own GCC)
> without a copyright assignment ? :-)
I see the smiley, but I'd say the serious answer to that is that it
might or might not be depending on what we knew about the copyright
status of that code.
If we knew (and this is the ha
> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat. For GCC as a project it
> should matter that the code is distributable under GPLv3 which I think
> Apples change
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> * What standard is going to be implemented? ObjC 2.0 is not even a
> documented language standard, so you probably end up with something
> that is incompatible with Apple ObjC anyway. Without a documented
> standard, the only "standard" is the Apple co
>> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
>> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
>> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
>
> That code is not part of the compiler proper. The policy has always
> been different for the test suites
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
> some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end.
Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "f
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
That code is not part of the compiler proper. The pol
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
>> > currently is
>> > charged with maintaining their objc
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
> > currently is
> > charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
>
> Apple does not have an i
On Sep 9, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Why don't you upload one of the recent Apple GCC tarballs in a branch on the
> FSF server ?
> ...
> You don't have to do it, but contributing changes back to the original
> project seems to be the right, honourable thing to do, particularly when
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
> is
> charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
Apple does not have an internal process to assign code to the FSF anymore. I
would focus on the c
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> *Until and unless* Apple itself submits the code to the FSF, Apple retains
> the copyright; which means that nobody else has the right to submit it to the
> FSF. (Unless Apple gives /them/ (the hypothetical third party) an assignment
> that allows
On 09/09/2010 20:19, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Chris Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting him.
>Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
> is
> charged with maintaining their objc languages
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:27:16PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2010,@3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> >> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
> >> to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
>
On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
>> to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
>
> My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I&#
Chris
thanks a lot for your answer. That makes sense - I had not realized that most
of the Apple GCC Objective-C / Objective-C++ changes
were already sitting on the FSF servers in an Apple branch :-) Can someone
from the FSF confirm that it's OK to merge code from there ?
I did look a
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
> GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
> Any legal obstacles ?
>
> If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge these
> modif
> I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
> changes to GCC, moreover I checked
> the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and all the
> copyright notices on all files mention the
> "Free Software Foundation Inc." as the copyright holder.
>
> I guess that
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
> GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither. Chris
Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I&#
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
changes to GCC, moreover I checked
the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and al
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge
these modifications, would they be accepted ?
I think Apple would benefit from merging of
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
