gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Patrick Mackeown]

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org 		 	   		  

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 13:01, Keil, Jochen via Gcc-help <
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello Florian,
>
> > * Jochen via Gcc-help Keil:
> >
> > > However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the
> > > files in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing
> > > terms of GPL-3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it
> > > still valid to use those libraries with statically linked proprietary
> > > code?
> >
> > You will ask your own lawyer for a definite answer.
> >
> > The intent is that libcc1 and libcpp can only used from programs which
> are
> > free software, regardless of how the program is linked.
>
> Thanks for your answer!
>
> For clarification, I was wondering if the license terms in
> `COPYING.RUNTIME` from the GCC distribution tarball root directory also
> apply to the `libcc1` and `libcpp` sub-directories.
>
> There are other directories where the files explicitly state the Runtime
> Exception in addition to the GPL-3.0+ license. But given the files for
> `libcc1` and `libcpp` we are not sure what the scope and purpose of the
> `COPYING.RUNTIME` file is. I don't think our lawyer can help with that
> question. 😊
>
>
They could read that file for you :-)

It says:

This GCC Runtime Library Exception ("Exception") is an additional
permission under section 7 of the GNU General Public License, version
3 ("GPLv3"). It applies to a given file (the "Runtime Library") that
bears a notice placed by the copyright holder of the file stating that
the file is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception.

So it only applies to files which say so. If the files in libcc1 and libcpp
don't say it applies, it doesn't apply.

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:58, Keil, Jochen via Gcc-help
<gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In our team we are employing GCC for embedded products which require statically linked binaries. Our own code is proprietary, hence we would like to make use of the GPL-3.0+ Runtime Exception. We do not modify the GCC nor use Plugins to modify intermediate code, therefore I think we are allowed to link our object code statically with libgcc without releasing our proprietary source code.
>
> However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the files in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing terms of GPL-3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it still valid to use those libraries with statically linked proprietary code?

As Florian said, you should ask your lawyers for legal advice. Are you
even linking to libcc1 and libcpp though? If you're not linking to
them, their license doesn't affect your code.

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Richard Sandiford]

Hi,

The usual caveat applies that we can't provide legal advice.  But this
seems like a question about what code is covered by what licence,
which is definitely on-topic.

"Keil, Jochen via Gcc-help" <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Dear all,
>
> In our team we are employing GCC for embedded products which require statically linked binaries. Our own code is proprietary, hence we would like to make use of the GPL-3.0+ Runtime Exception. We do not modify the GCC nor use Plugins to modify intermediate code, therefore I think we are allowed to link our object code statically with libgcc without releasing our proprietary source code.
>
> However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the files in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing terms of GPL-3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it still valid to use those libraries with statically linked proprietary code?

libcc1 and libcpp are effectively parts of compiler itself, but built as
a library.  Like you say, this maans that they are covered by the full GPL.

However, libcc1 and libcpp are "host" libraries rather than target
libraries.  I.e. they're designed to run on the machine that runs the
compiler, not on the target machine that runs code built by the compiler
(in cases where there the two are different).  This is in contrast to
libgcc and libstdc++-v3, which are target libraries.

In case this is your concern: the compiler won't link against libcc1 and
libcpp unless you explicitly tell it to.  So code built by the compiler
won't include libcc1 and libcpp unless you choose to link them in.

Thanks,
Richard

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Florian Weimer]

* Jochen via Gcc-help Keil:

> However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the
> files in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing
> terms of GPL-3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it
> still valid to use those libraries with statically linked proprietary
> code?

You will ask your own lawyer for a definite answer.

The intent is that libcc1 and libcpp can only used from programs which
are free software, regardless of how the program is linked.

Thanks,
Florian

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Keil, Jochen]

Dear all,

In our team we are employing GCC for embedded products which require statically linked binaries. Our own code is proprietary, hence we would like to make use of the GPL-3.0+ Runtime Exception. We do not modify the GCC nor use Plugins to modify intermediate code, therefore I think we are allowed to link our object code statically with libgcc without releasing our proprietary source code.

However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the files in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing terms of GPL-3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it still valid to use those libraries with statically linked proprietary code?

In case this is an off-topic question I'd like to kindly ask you to direct me in the right direction for this issue.

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,

  Jochen Keil

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[zajnmnizb]

gcc-help   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
开各地正规普通增值税票，点优惠，包真。
详电：陈红{女士}
手机：135 9014 5089
业务QQ：1248802718
+++++++++++yelLkbz+++++++++++++++++++
6:09英旧|'AyGXkEL初度桂习周维来回

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[zajnmnizb]

gcc-help   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
开各地正规普通增值税票，点优惠，包真。
详电：陈红{女士}
手机：135 9014 5089
业务QQ：1248802718
+++++++++++yelLkbz+++++++++++++++++++
6:09英旧|'AyGXkEL初度桂习周维来回

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[adiewvt]

gcc-help   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
开各地正规普通增值税票，点优惠，包真。
详电：陈红{女士}
手机：135 9014 5089
业务QQ：1248802718
+++++++++++YjmPeKE+++++++++++++++++++
3:36夷块每受笆比歧\)BMlr顷挖径直胡了

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[adiewvt]

gcc-help   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
开各地正规普通增值税票，点优惠，包真。
详电：陈红{女士}
手机：135 9014 5089
业务QQ：1248802718
+++++++++++YjmPeKE+++++++++++++++++++
3:36夷块每受笆比歧\)BMlr顷挖径直胡了

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Jul 10, 2015 8:31 PM, "Hotmail (ArbolOne)" wrote:
>
> What do I have to do to get removed from this list!!?

Maybe try reading the emails when I tell you the answer:

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-02/msg00126.html

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-04/msg00169.html

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Hotmail (ArbolOne)]

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
What do I have to do to get removed from this list!!?

Re: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Jeffrey Walton]

Amazing coincidence. Patrick Mackeown just posted the exact same message.

I guess folks are lining up to take the place of Sanford Wallace due
to his impending conviction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/05/us-facebook-spam-idUSTRE7746SK20110805.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Joe Young <j.joeyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
> gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
>

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Joe Young]

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Panos C. C.]

I get a very weird error in a simple and pretty straightforward piece of code involving 2 templates. I've found a workaround but its ugly and probably unsafe. Does anyone know what is wrong with the following code. Intel C++ compiler also fails.


Error:

../main.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
../main.cpp:54: error: no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘niaou = bs.RsrcContainer<Type>::foo [with Type = B]()’
../main.cpp:19: note: candidates are: RsrcPtr<Type>& RsrcPtr<Type>::operator=(RsrcPtr<Type>&) [with Type = B]


Code:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
template<typename Type>
class RsrcPtr
{
    public:
        explicit RsrcPtr(Type* p_ = NULL):
            p(p_)
        {}

        RsrcPtr<Type>& operator=(RsrcPtr<Type> &a)
        {
            p = a.p;
            a.p = NULL;
        }

    private:
        Type* p;
};


template<typename Type>
class RsrcContainer
{
    public:
        RsrcPtr<Type> foo()
        {
            RsrcPtr<Type> tmp(new Type);
            return tmp;
        }
};


class B
{
    public:
        int x;
};


int main()
{
    RsrcContainer<B> bs;
    RsrcPtr<B> niaou;
    niaou = bs.foo();
    return 0;
}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I replace operator= with this:

template<Type1>
RsrcPtr<Type1>& operator=(RsrcPtr<Type1> &a)
{
    p = a.p;
    a.p = NULL;
}


I get no error (actually auto_ptr does the same) but its not logical.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[Beverly Seavey]

subscribe

gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

[vetcha prasad kumar]

Hi All,

I want to develop a ARM core for the academic project.
So I am not using all the features and full
instruction set of the ARM architecture.

I had a problem with porting the source code to it. I
have downloaded a gcc3.2 version compiler. How can i
customize the gcc compiler for this. So please tell me
the procedure and documents, if any available. Please
mention the links, if any available.

Thanks in advance

Regards,

Prasad

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com