This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization/3329: optimization large memory copies uses kern el memcpy function without user's knowledge.
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 2 Apr 2002 20:16:02 -0000
- Subject: Re: optimization/3329: optimization large memory copies uses kern el memcpy function without user's knowledge.
- Reply-to: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
The following reply was made to PR optimization/3329; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: "Araneda, Dorian" <dorian.araneda@intel.com>
Cc: "'rth@gcc.gnu.org'" <rth@gcc.gnu.org>,
"'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
"'gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
"'nobody@gcc.gnu.org'" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
"'gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/3329: optimization large memory copies uses kern el memcpy function without user's knowledge.
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:12:12 -0800
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:31:58AM -0800, Araneda, Dorian wrote:
> If closed source code has to depend on gnu open
> source code(linux memcpy), whether in binary form or not,
> the close source falls under the gnu license and must
> be distributed as gnu open source.
No, that's incorrect. Not all symbols are created equal.
Some of them are marked as GPL-only, some of them are not.
You should go back and review the licences involved.
> IRREGARDLESS IF I AM RIGHT OR WRONG, I don't care to even give
> the chance of accidentally creating a dependency within our
> proprietary closed source code to gnu open source.
Then you can't use gcc at all. We reserve the right to generate
code that calls into any of the compiler support routines in libgcc,
plus a select number of ISO C routines from libc. (The fact that
these symbols are packaged differently in the kernel than in userland
is immaterial.)
> I sure hope you are not anyone important at redhat
> with that "So what, I have no sympathy" elitist
> attitude that you exhibited. It shows poor character.
[...]
> As far as I am concerned this issue OVER along with
> the FLAME thread you decided to initiate.
Well, gee, I thought MY first message was pretty civil.
You're the one telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
r~