Re: [RFA] Some libgcc headers are missing the runtime exception

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

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