What license / licenses are the ChangeLogs of GCC distributed under?
This is of practical importance when I want to amend incomplete ChangeLogs
or use information from a ChangeLog to complete comments and/or documentation,
or want to write a ChangeLog for fixing a misspelling in code or documentat
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> What license / licenses are the ChangeLogs of GCC distributed under?
ChangeLogs are licensed under the permissive terms given in the license
notices at the bottom of each ChangeLog file, which were the terms the FSF
recommended for "rough documentati
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
What license / licenses are the ChangeLogs of GCC distributed under?
ChangeLogs are licensed under the permissive terms given in the license
notices at the bottom of each ChangeLog file,
Oops, I missed that bit.
So it
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> So it appears that writing ChangeLog entries for code from a branch where
> I have no (longer) a connection with the original submitter requires
> getting permission from the FSF to use the file names, function names
> and identifiers mentioned, at leas
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
I suggest you recalibrate your understanding of the scope of copyright to
be less expansive rather than supposing it to apply to "file names,
function names and identifiers".
But if identifieres were OK, wouldn't that mean that auto-generating
documentation that sho
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
>
> > I suggest you recalibrate your understanding of the scope of copyright to
> > be less expansive rather than supposing it to apply to "file names,
> > function names and identifiers".
>
> But if identifieres were OK, w
On 20 June 2010 16:37, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>
> I spent a lot of time before getting the target hook code, comments and
> documentation consistent, only to be told that the GCC maintainers have
> no authority to move information from code or comments into documentation
> or vice versa.
For what
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
I do not see any copyright issues with the hook names and argument types
and names. With the bodies of the descriptions of the semantics of the
hooks (in .texi or comments), yes, but not with the names and types of
hooks and their arguments.
If that is actually the
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100620 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100620/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> But if identifieres were OK, wouldn't that mean that auto-generating
>> documentation that shows hook names along with argument types and names
>> are also OK?
>
> I do not see any copyright issues with the hook names and argument types
> and names. With the bodies of
On 2010-6-20 14:18, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
asmwarrior writes:
My question is: Is there any possible that GCC can emit some debug
information to indicate that one variable is initialed or not.(at
least in the DEBUG build mode)
You didn't mention which version of gcc you are testing.
Hi, all. About the "info locals" and python pretty printer problem I
post here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2010-06/msg00080.html
see the result here:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,12747.msg86443.html#msg86443
I have solved this problem by hacking the GDB source code. You can se
in calls.c:
tfom = lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (outmode, 0);
if (aggregate_value_p (tfom, 0))
for 64bit mod, outmode ends up TImode.
Our frontend doesn't support TImode -- reasonable? -- and so type_for_mode
returns NULL here.
aggregate_value_p then derefences that NULL.
At leas
13 matches
Mail list logo
