From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 195E63858438 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:35:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 195E63858438 Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id h17so18591353wrx.0 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=+rIlBJp/VdtYOG/sYOQqQyVqL4ok/PTPIvlqw7SYKDA=; b=blyF05ZqIzf9ylrL27RBE6ABENaqvs99nSUGk0AvEj08oy3Th/XKqGPRGod4BAP4vd y3qqPNDM2/BnvAB2ONSmKtupG4YzkecUD51uzCZFtMBU1TC3lUG9isWsHpkoWomynx+M aYG4YDwSIZS6tx4MwVLDcXvFlpcTSimSQLjWufdRlI3tBW7Fv7kAl3l3Ydzbb2v1Os4u PSbXQDFJHO+CPvAFyJsT9jyz/DeD6omJ8RjHtGT4VGDz2wdC9IhKg1/dAwvclEaBVakj 8QepMEENA9/1ohM4ZAV3BOgQNs9DHElwRYxCmdLunI5VB30gAtCQGgu/rkuzXq1CBrNh oUMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9K4VR/ykI0dQLsSZI5CupHqLpICPLGbk0m0bQfYVIII5EfxDyq Ps4C9nzOoi/+bown2tEVag0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1t42bEy4yzAqmp2T/uYW3FltbnN+5LOC3j26K3A38dw0NqpOCB2UfOVbfptHeav0h8hcdQtfw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5f05:0:b0:21d:9ad7:f281 with SMTP id cl5-20020a5d5f05000000b0021d9ad7f281mr25317572wrb.4.1658172934769; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (92.40.175.118.threembb.co.uk. [92.40.175.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v192-20020a1cacc9000000b003a2cf1535aasm16042434wme.17.2022.07.18.12.35.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:35:33 +0100 User-Agent: XryptoMail for Android In-Reply-To: <87wncaw9ty.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> References: <87wncaw9ty.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: rust non-free-compatible trademark To: Florian Weimer ,lkcl via Gcc From: lkcl Message-ID: <8F5B23E9-BC92-4BFC-A829-AF818CA2C170@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:35:39 -0000 (apologies top-posting, strange mobile mailer)=2E i would expect in that ca= se that the Rust Foundation to work closely with Certification Mark License= es, and to come to an accommodation, defining a subset if necessary=2E if the gcc developers can clearly enunciate why shipping a "borrow checker= " (whatever that is) is unreasonable, the Certification Mark Holder has to = take that into consideration=2E without knowing full details i would expec= t it to be a third party library of some kind (rather than libgcc=2Ea) Certification Mark Holders *have* to act FRAND otherwise they lose the Cer= tification Mark aside: it is reasonable for a Certification Mark Holder to require full co= mpliance, they are after all the Custodians of the Language, and one would = not expect a broken (non-compliant) compiler to actually be distributed, re= gardless of a Certification Mark=2E thus i think you'll find that the usual "pre-alpha alpha beta" release cyc= les which would and would not naturally be released for distribution fit di= rectly and one-to-one with what a Certification Mark Holder would and would= not authorise=2E regarding missing tests: well, tough titty on the Certification Mark Holde= r=2E if they cannot define the Compliance Test Suite they cannot tell peop= le they are non-compliant, can they! thus although quirky it all works out=2E (whereas telling people what patches they can and cannot apply just pisses= them off)=2E l=2E On July 18, 2022 7:32:25 PM GMT+01:00, Florian Weimer wrote: >* lkcl via Gcc: > >> if the Rust Foundation were to add an extremely simple phrase >> >> "to be able to use the word rust in a distributed compiler your >> modifications must 100% pass the test suite without modifying >> the test suite" >> >> then all the problems and pain goes away=2E > >No=2E It would actually make matters worse for GCC in this case because >the stated intent is to ship without a borrow checker (=E2=80=9CThere are= no >immediate plans for a borrow checker as this is not required to compile >rust code=E2=80=9D, , retrieved 2022-07-= 18)=2E=20 >There >are of course tests for the borrow checker in the Rust test suite, and >those that check for expected compiler errors will fail with GCC=2E > >Thanks, >Florian