From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21220 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2003 15:33:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21213 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 15:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 15:33:25 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HFXPH25268 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:33:25 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HFXPI26234; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:33:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain.redhat.com (vpnuser1.stuttgart.redhat.com [172.16.4.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HFWq507576; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:33:14 -0400 To: Galit.Heller@nsc.com Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Port to binutils without assembler References: <3F1404F9.3FC87967@nsc.com> From: Nick Clifton Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F1404F9.3FC87967@nsc.com> (Galit Heller's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:43:21 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 Hi Galit, > I'm a member of a team at National Semiconductor, which develops > and supports a development toolset for National Semiconductor's > CompactRISC CPUs. The compiler, linker and debugger are a gnu based > port (currently for CR16C). > > We are planning to begin the process of submitting the port - > initially to binutils - and we have a preliminary question: > can we submit to binutils w/o the assembler ? This is actually quite a complex question. One the hand, the FSF is very reluctant to accept any contributions which will make a user reliant on proprietary software. Their goal is to free software from ownership and instead put it in the public domain. So although a binutils linker for the CR16C might be nice, on its own it is not enough to create a free set of tools for the architecture. On the other hand, by accepting and making available a free linker, the binutils project might encourage CompactRISC CPU users to develop and release a port of GAS as well. Thereby achieving the goal of a completely free set of binary utilities for the architecture. > This is because the assembler is currently not ported to gnu. Does this mean that you do have plans to port GAS to the CompactRISC architecture ? If so, do you also plan to contribute this port if/when it is complete ? > We would be willing to assign the assembler's (proprietary) source > code to the FSF under GPL, if this were to help. It would certainly help. With a free assembler, even if it is not GAS, a programmer would be able to obtain a completely free set of binary tools for the CR16C, which matches the FSF goals in this area. So - in conclusion - yes the binutils project would be prepared to accept a CR16C linker contribution, provided that: a. The appropriate FSF copyright assignments were made & b. A free assembler was also available. (This does not have to be GAS, although that would be nice). Cheers Nick Clifton Binutils Head Maintainer