All

I changed my mind. I withdraw my request. All should know what (which
toolchain) they use. If I do not trust myself, no one denies to patch
GCC to get own built-in define, e.g. __home_cooked__ as a memory stick
to distinguish toolchains :-)

Thanks for your points and time!

Sergei

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Paul Beskeen wrote:

> On 17/01/2012 09:57, Bernard Fouché wrote:
> > Le 16/01/2012 22:11, Sergei Gavrikov a écrit :
> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> >>
> >>> I hope I have convinced you and Stano that I did not suggest to
> >>> "close" eCos sources by __ecos__ checks. More that to propagate
> >>> that built-in definition is only a few lines for GCC patch and if
> >>> that is issue I am ready to withdraw my "I like their built-in"
> >>> :-)
> >> Nobody (me too) said (thought) about:
> >>
> >>    http://www.ecoscentric.com/trademark_usage.shtml
> >>
> >> AIANL. So, I actually withdraw my "wish" as [eCos] is registered
> >> trademark and anyone would use our patches and abuse the word.
> >>
> >> Sergei
> > 
> > Being able to identify/check the toolchain used seems a very good
> > idea.  Why not ask eCosCentric about the legal issue? They already
> > make a toolchain available for public eCos, that can be installed
> > with the installation tool (see
> > http://ecos.sourceware.org/getstart.html) . IMHO it is in the
> > interest of eCos to avoid having its public image altered because of
> > bugs that are related to the toolchain and not eCos itself.
> 
> On the trademark front there is no issue with the public eCos release
> using this as required (see 1.1.1/4 section in the above referenced
> URL).
> 
> On a personal note, I would however avoid the use of __ecos__ in the
> toolchain for all the reasons that Grant has already pointed out.
> Critically, you don't want to limit users to a specific set of
> toolchains.
> 
> Regards, Paul.
> --
> Paul Beskeen, Chairman & Director of Engineering
> http://www.ecoscentric.com/
>