From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7003 invoked by alias); 3 May 2003 20:37:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6990 invoked from network); 3 May 2003 20:37:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 May 2003 20:37:14 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27079; Sat, 3 May 2003 13:37:10 -0700 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma027067; Sat, 3 May 03 13:36:40 -0700 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h43Kaha05537; Sat, 3 May 2003 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id NAA03456; Sat, 3 May 2003 13:36:43 -0700 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16052.10331.372341.322890@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 20:37:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] FRV input files In-Reply-To: <3EB40A72.1060304@redhat.com> References: <3EB31259.8050603@redhat.com> <16051.5717.174285.478274@casey.transmeta.com> <3EB40A72.1060304@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 [note: I added cgen@sources.redhat.com back to the cc list.] Andrew Cagney writes: > Doug, see > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-09/msg00689.html Righto (and my thanks to the powers that be for letting it be src/cpu!), but I don't see how this clears up my confusion. Why did you submit a patch for frv.cpu,et.al. to binutils? [I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have. I'm just asking why.] frv.cpu already exists in src/cgen/cpu (as do other files of course). What needs to happen is for most/all of the files in src/cgen/cpu to move to src/cpu. [No?] There's also the issue of copyright. One might take it as a given, but for my own education: When the files in src/cgen/cpu/* get moved to src/cpu will Redhat assign copyright over to the FSF? I see that src/cgen/cpu/frv.cpu has copyright Redhat and the patch you've submitted to binutils has copyright FSF. I think it's not strictly necessary, but I'd still like to know where people stand on the issue. Is that Redhat's plan of record? [i.e. assign copyright of *.cpu,*.opc,simplify.inc over to the FSF] What about cgen itself? There's also the issue of the kind of copyright attached to these files (which I think needs to be unambiguous). Cgen files use the cgen copyright (aka autoconf copyright). Yet the copyright notice at the top of the frv.cpu file you've submitted is pure GPL. Which is it? I'd also like to repeat my earlier question which didn't get answered. Is the plan to move src/cgen/cpu/* to src/cpu in a piecemeal fashion or all at once? And for completeness' sake I guess: If en-masse, has anyone taken on the task of doing the en-masse move? [and what's the schedule?] I'm certainly willing to take on the task of doing the physical move, but obviously I have no say in copyright issues (other than expressing an opinion).