On 07/11/2012 02:15, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Ok, does this mean that there is no primary and secondary target in GCC that
covers PowerPC Book E with ELF and EABI?
If I change something in this area is there at least a well known tertiary
t
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2012 17:12
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> On 11/06/2012 05:50 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> > I am following your advice and usi
On 11/07/2012 11:41 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Yes, the reordering works fine. The problem is when I change the
> value of *n_readyp. The c6x port returns n_ready (which for me
> doesn't make sense since the max insns I can schedule in a cycle is 2
> which is my issue_rate), but doesn't change *n_re
Dear all,
this is a repeat of an email to licens...@fsf.org; unfortunately I
didn't get any response from there.
I'm the author of a high-level synthesis tool (sort of hardware
compiler) that is about to be commercialized. The tool will be
available under a non-GPL compatible license.
I
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 07 November 2012 10:48
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> Yes... I seem to remember the documentation is just wrong for that hook
> (and the
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
1. Is it possible to use this scheme and not violate the GPL,v3 for
GCC? If I use GIMPLE dumps generated by "-fdump-tree-all" I think
there is a violation (correct me if not). Thus this module should be
FLOSS/GPL'ed, right?
You can't expect to
On 11/07/2012 12:08 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
>> Sent: 07 November 2012 10:48
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>>
>> Yes... I seem to remember the d
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 07 November 2012 11:24
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
>
> You can effectively remove it by returning zero if all the insns on the
> ready l
Hi,
You can't expect to get legal advice from a list like this, and if
you do get advice, you can't trust it. You have to consult an attorney
to evaluate issues like this, and even then you can't get
guaranteed definitive advice. Copyright issues are complex,
as Supap Kirtsaeng is discovering in
I'm pretty certain I have correctly interpreted GPL,v3. I have good
reasons to believe that. However, I'm willing to read your
interpretation of the GPL,v3, if you have any.
If you are certain enough, then you can of course proceed
on that assumption. I have no interest in giving my opinion
on t
> I have a few questions to make sure that I will not violate the GPL,v3:
If you have a legal question, you should ask an attorney who specializes
in copyright law as it applies to computer software. Do not rely on
anything you get as a response to your question online.
The below is my opinion,
Hi Robert,
There are two comfortable ways to conform to the GPL.
a) make all your own stuff GPL'ed
b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with
the standard library exception.
I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention.
Anything else, and you are pret
> AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom...
If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list:
it's not going to be well-received.
> I know I have come to a scheme that I will not violate the GPL.
I disagree.
Hi Richard,
If you have a legal question, you should ask an attorney who specializes
in copyright law as it applies to computer software. Do not rely on
anything you get as a response to your question online.
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
If NAC i
Hi Richard,
If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list:
it's not going to be well-received.
I don't want to sound b@d@ss or something, even though I am ^_^. This
is not my saying, just that my army colleagues wouldn't shake hands
when I fulfilled my service. Ma
On 11/7/2012 8:17 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
I disagree.
I think you are wrong, however it is not really productive to express it.
I would not casually ignore Richard's opinion, he has FAR more
experience here than you do, and far more familiarity with
the issues involved.
> > b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with
> > the standard library exception.
>
> I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention.
But most of GCC, which you are "linking in" by virtue of a custom
interface, does *not* have the library exception, so you ar
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
Then I'd suggest trying in other EU nations. I am not a lawyer, but
I understand that most of the relevant issues are the same throughout
the EU.
> Would these solve my problem?
No, not as long as it's *your* machine.
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
The legal issue is in the
Hi Richard
Would these solve my problem?
No, not as long as it's *your* machine. It would need to be a machine
designed by a third-party that's completely independent of you.
I would like to follow the approach of let's say MMIX (a virtual
architecture).
1. Write a totally GPL-ed tool f
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
On 11/7/2012 9:44 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
> I don't find any of these as an actual showstopper. The FSF is not entitled to
> decide whether a target architecture is a spoof or not as long as it is
> properly defined.
Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your schem
> Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme
> conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the
> people on this list can.
A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are
the copyright holders. If they say it's OK,
On 11/7/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme
conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the
people on this list can.
A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are
the c
On 11/07/12 12:08, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
> AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was
> to protect my freedom.
No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been
said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the
GPL to protec
Hi Robert
One principle that can be applied is that if you have a program in
two pieces, then they are independent if either of them can be used
(and is used in practice) with other programs. But if the two pieces
can only work together, that seems part of the same program. I tried
to get this p
Hi all,
I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and
believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing
by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will
contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list -
or an
Hi Andrew
AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was
to protect my freedom.
No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been
said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the
GPL to protect the rights of developers to impose res
Hi all,
what I basically want to do is a kind of "MMIX", an abstract machine
that amongst other uses could be amenable to hardware compilation.
This specific use is not of interest to neither this list nor GCC
developers in general. There are many other uses for such a
"representation" su
> Yes, the case is that the two pieces can be independent since they can
> be used with third-party programs. The one piece would be GPL-ed tool
> flow and the other piece a kind of "specialized" assembler. I recall
> that many proprietary assemblers did/do exist, e.g. for x86. I think
> we
Hi
You missed the part about "(and is used in practice)".
This terminology is superficial. Looks carelessly written. A tool with
either one user or one million users would equally fit the definition.
You can't take something that is not permissible under copyright law
I think you are wr
The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing
list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of
things so I WON'T "commit the crime".
I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any problems;
I really want to serve my one trillion users
Hi Administrator,
I've reported a broken link on your site
gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/1999-q3n/msg00261.html that links to
http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/math-faq.html and haven't heard back,
so I just wanted to verify whether you're the right person to contact? If not,
could you direct
> The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing
> list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of
> things so I WON'T "commit the crime".
>
> I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any
> problems; I really want to serve my one trillion us
Hi all,
In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed
code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests?
Or is a disclaimer required such as found in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ?
Thanks,
Oleg
On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
Hi all,
In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed
code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests?
Or is a disclaimer required such as found in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ?
Ideally the
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed
> > code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests?
> > Or is a disclaimer required such as
Hi Arnaud,
This is all nice and well and I'm sure you're having lots of fun with
these discussions, but gcc@gcc.gnu.org is NOT an appropriate
list for such discussions, so please move this discussion elsewhere,
there are people on this list who would rather not receive these unrelated
emails, th
On 11/07/2012 03:08 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
Hi all,
In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed
code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests?
Or is a disc
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 15:12 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 03:08 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed
> >>>
41 matches
Mail list logo
