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