From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-494567-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32113 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2015 14:17:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32039 invoked by uid 48); 11 Aug 2015 14:17:41 -0000
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:17:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54089-4-SWGe8EmjiI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54089-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54089-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089

--- Comment #40 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #39)
> Oleg, do you have rights under your copyright assignment agreement to
> dual-license the libgcc part of the patch under GPLv2 so it could be
> included in the kernel, and if so, would you be willing to do so?

If I understand it correctly, it should be OK.  Please contact me directly
about this.  If possible, please also add the other people who want this to the
CC list.

> I agree it
> would be cleaner for the kernel not to duplicate libgcc code, but getting in
> a simple patch to update the code that's there would be a lot easier than
> the build-architectural change of using libgcc itself in the kernel, which
> is an issue I'd really rather not fight with the kernel developers on if
> they disagree. :-)

A quick search for "libgcc linux kernel" tells the story about this. 
Unfortunately, you are right.