From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20584 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2013 01:18:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 20558 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2013 01:18:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:17:53 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UD2zP-0005N2-VY from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:17:52 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:17:52 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 01:17:50 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UD2zN-0000Am-0E; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:17:49 +0000 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:18:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Roland McGrath CC: Richard Henderson , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] arm: Add optimized addmul_1 In-Reply-To: <20130301180032.C9BA52C0B2@topped-with-meat.com> Message-ID: References: <1362159320-5934-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <1362159320-5934-13-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <20130301180032.C9BA52C0B2@topped-with-meat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Roland McGrath wrote: > I think the license is a non-problem since FSF is copyright owner. My understanding was that FSF approval was needed for relicensing code from other FSF-owned packages (as opposed to correcting simple mistakes, e.g. making the license notice on a file reflect established licensing practice for files used in a particular way). (E.g., when license exception notices were added to soft-fp for use in libgcc, that involved FSF approval for adding those notices.) > But if your from-scratch code is good then I don't know there's a > strong reason to use GMP's instead, since we haven't been tracking > GMP changes in our copies for years anyway AFAIK. I suspect other architectures might benefit from changes made in GMP to improve performance - but certainly this is code that has diverged significantly from the GMP versions over time. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com