* [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception [not found] ` <CAGWvnymBxVsTeJgD6TsNFP=E1AKETb2WPc5rDWWFVMVRFE-3Kw@mail.gmail.com> @ 2021-07-12 15:58 ` Richard Sandiford 2021-07-12 16:15 ` David Edelsohn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Richard Sandiford @ 2021-07-12 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Edelsohn Cc: gcc-patches, Jeffrey Law, Joseph S. Myers, Ramana Radhakrishnan [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2655 bytes --] 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: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> 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? Thanks, Richard [-- Attachment #2: 0001-libgcc-Add-missing-runtime-exception-notices.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 6007 bytes --] From a601ac8ea9be14a898215456c22cd826e8fd92d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:04:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] libgcc: Add missing runtime exception notices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting from https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236716.html: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, frv-abi.h referenced the exception but didn't include it. pa64-hpux-lib.h was missing any reference to the exception. The decision was that this was simply a mistake [https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236717.html]: -------------------------------------------------------------------- […] 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- and that we should simply change all of the files above [https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236719.html]: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. […] The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception. -------------------------------------------------------------------- libgcc/ * config/aarch64/value-unwind.h: Add missing runtime exception paragraph. * config/frv/frv-abi.h: Likewise. * config/i386/value-unwind.h: Likewise. * config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h: Likewise. --- libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h | 9 +++++++-- 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h b/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h index 1f50a47203c..041ca13e9b0 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h +++ b/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h b/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h index 9af4ea4441d..0f7ed83df72 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h +++ b/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h b/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h index 66f76bbe1f3..80267eee79d 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h +++ b/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h b/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h index 85d5826a173..eeab98f1340 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h +++ b/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h @@ -14,8 +14,13 @@ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. -You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License -along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see +Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional +permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version +3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and +a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; +see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */ /* We use DTOR_LIST_BEGIN to carry a bunch of hacks to allow us to use -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception 2021-07-12 15:58 ` [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception Richard Sandiford @ 2021-07-12 16:15 ` David Edelsohn 2021-07-12 16:34 ` Richard Sandiford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Edelsohn @ 2021-07-12 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC Patches, Jeffrey Law, Joseph S. Myers, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Richard Sandiford 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: > >> >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> 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, but it looks good to me. It would be nice to add SPDX License Identifier at the top of the files as well, but that's not required. Thanks, David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception 2021-07-12 16:15 ` David Edelsohn @ 2021-07-12 16:34 ` Richard Sandiford 2021-08-30 10:58 ` Thomas Schwinge 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Richard Sandiford @ 2021-07-12 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Edelsohn Cc: GCC Patches, Jeffrey Law, Joseph S. Myers, Ramana Radhakrishnan 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: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > It would be nice to add SPDX License Identifier at the top of the > files as well, but that's not required. Yeah, I agree that might a good thing to have, but TBH I try to keep my involvement with licensing stuff to the bare minimum :-) Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception 2021-07-12 16:34 ` Richard Sandiford @ 2021-08-30 10:58 ` Thomas Schwinge 2021-08-30 11:46 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-08-30 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Sandiford, David Edelsohn, gcc-patches Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan, Joseph S. Myers, Jeff Law [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3706 bytes --] 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 [-- Attachment #2: 0001-libgcc-Add-missing-runtime-exception-notices.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 6007 bytes --] From a601ac8ea9be14a898215456c22cd826e8fd92d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:04:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] libgcc: Add missing runtime exception notices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting from https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236716.html: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, frv-abi.h referenced the exception but didn't include it. pa64-hpux-lib.h was missing any reference to the exception. The decision was that this was simply a mistake [https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236717.html]: -------------------------------------------------------------------- […] 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- and that we should simply change all of the files above [https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-July/236719.html]: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. […] The runtime exception explicitly was intended for this purpose and usage at the time that GCC received approval to apply the exception. -------------------------------------------------------------------- libgcc/ * config/aarch64/value-unwind.h: Add missing runtime exception paragraph. * config/frv/frv-abi.h: Likewise. * config/i386/value-unwind.h: Likewise. * config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h: Likewise. --- libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h | 4 ++++ libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h | 9 +++++++-- 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h b/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h index 1f50a47203c..041ca13e9b0 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h +++ b/libgcc/config/aarch64/value-unwind.h @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h b/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h index 9af4ea4441d..0f7ed83df72 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h +++ b/libgcc/config/frv/frv-abi.h @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h b/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h index 66f76bbe1f3..80267eee79d 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h +++ b/libgcc/config/i386/value-unwind.h @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. + Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional + permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version + 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see diff --git a/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h b/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h index 85d5826a173..eeab98f1340 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h +++ b/libgcc/config/pa/pa64-hpux-lib.h @@ -14,8 +14,13 @@ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. -You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License -along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see +Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional +permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version +3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and +a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; +see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */ /* We use DTOR_LIST_BEGIN to carry a bunch of hacks to allow us to use -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception 2021-08-30 10:58 ` Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-08-30 11:46 ` Richard Biener 2021-08-31 10:01 ` Richard Sandiford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2021-08-30 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: Richard Sandiford, David Edelsohn, GCC Patches, Joseph S. Myers, Ramana Radhakrishnan On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:59 PM Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > 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? OK. Thanks, Richard. > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception 2021-08-30 11:46 ` Richard Biener @ 2021-08-31 10:01 ` Richard Sandiford 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Richard Sandiford @ 2021-08-31 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener Cc: Thomas Schwinge, David Edelsohn, GCC Patches, Joseph S. Myers, Ramana Radhakrishnan Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:59 PM Thomas Schwinge > <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >> 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? > > OK. Thanks, now pushed to GCC 9+. Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-31 10:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <mptlf6fjuo2.fsf@arm.com>
[not found] ` <mptpmvrjupn.fsf@arm.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnynKTb6tWHnN__WP=NZvbDDCSDK_7j9j8L74R-oM2eeSSQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <mpta6mvjsw7.fsf@arm.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnymBxVsTeJgD6TsNFP=E1AKETb2WPc5rDWWFVMVRFE-3Kw@mail.gmail.com>
2021-07-12 15:58 ` [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception Richard Sandiford
2021-07-12 16:15 ` David Edelsohn
2021-07-12 16:34 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-08-30 10:58 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-08-30 11:46 ` Richard Biener
2021-08-31 10:01 ` Richard Sandiford
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).