This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, David Edelsohn <edelsohn at gmail dot com>, "Harle, Christophe" <christophe dot harle at amd dot com>, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>, Konrad Trifunovic <konrad dot trifunovic at gmail dot com>, Albert Cohen <Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr>, Roberto Bagnara <bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it>, Doran Wilde <wilde at ee dot byu dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:15:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes
- References: <cb9d34b20808031231l690256a2r918908804397072b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808031947270.15922@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20080804074738.GA17657@ins.uni-bonn.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808041018040.24095@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4aca3dc20808040907w4065d9d1mbd6bbc7a68e0155@mail.gmail.com> <20080804163631.GJ18206@synopsys.com>
* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:31PM CEST:
>
> Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out
> about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the
> ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to
> produce an undistributable binary. That doesn't mean that third parties
> aren't free to grab the pieces and do it on their own.
FWIW, the UWIN change was enabled on 2001-01-09, this is the
corresponding discussion:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00415.html>,
and this is the general reasoning behind it: the end of
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00562.html>, and the begining of
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00577.html>.
It would be nice (and IMVHO fully sufficient) if the configure error
which was suggested would state the reason for the error, and also point
the user to the way out, i.e., obtaining a non-GPLv2 version of polylib.
> (Oh, crap, I feel a long amateur lawyer thread coming on.
I hope not. I was merely unaware of the UWIN precedent decision.
Cheers,
Ralf