Hi!

Ping.  For easy reference I've again attached Richard Sandiford's
"libgcc: Add missing runtime exception notices".

On 2021-07-12T17:34:09+0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford
>> <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>>> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>>> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:31 PM Richard Sandiford
>>> > <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>>> >> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:53 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc
>>> >> > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> It was pointed out to me off-list that config/aarch64/value-unwind.h
>>> >> >> is missing the runtime exception.  It looks like a few other files
>>> >> >> are too; a fuller list is:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h
>>> >> >> libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h
>>> >> >> libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h
>>> >> >> libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Certainly for the aarch64 file this was simply a mistake;
>>> >> >> it seems to have been copied from the i386 version, both of which
>>> >> >> reference the runtime exception but don't actually include it.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What's the procedure for fixing this?  Can we treat it as a textual
>>> >> >> error or do the files need to be formally relicensed?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm unsure what you mean by "formally relicensed".
>>> >>
>>> >> It seemed like there were two possibilities: the licence of the files
>>> >> is actually GPL + exception despite what the text says (the textual
>>> >> error case), or the licence of the files is plain GPL because the text
>>> >> has said so since the introduction of the files.  In the latter case
>>> >> I'd have imagined that someone would need to relicense the code so
>>> >> that it is GPL + exception.
>>> >>
>>> >> > It generally is considered a textual omission.  The runtime library
>>> >> > components of GCC are intended to be licensed under the runtime
>>> >> > exception, which was granted and approved at the time of introduction.
>>> >>
>>> >> OK, thanks.  So would a patch to fix at least the i386 and aarch64 header
>>> >> files be acceptable?  (I'm happy to fix the other two as well if that's
>>> >> definitely the right thing to do.  It's just that there's more history
>>> >> involved there…)
>>> >
>>> > Please correct the text in the files. The files in libgcc used in the
>>> > GCC runtime are intended to be licensed with the runtime exception and
>>> > GCC previously was granted approval for that licensing and purpose.
>>> >
>>> > As you are asking the question, I sincerely doubt that ARM and Cavium
>>> > intended to apply a license without the exception to those files.  And
>>> > similarly for Intel and FRV.
>>>
>>> FTR, I think only Linaro (rather than Arm) touched the aarch64 file.
>>>
>>> > The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and
>>> > usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception.
>>>
>>> Ack.  Is the patch below OK for trunk and branches?
>>
>> I'm not certain whom you are asking for approval,
>
> I was assuming it would need a global reviewer.
>
>> but it looks good to me.
>
> Thanks.

So in addition to David, would a Global Reviewer please review this?


Grüße
 Thomas


-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955