Re: GCC and C89 Defect Report 106

["Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at monkeys dot com>]

In message <20000702122847.A238@wolery.cumb.org>, you wrote:

>On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 10:18:26AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>> 
>>   In message <20000701213927.A21757@wolery.cumb.org>you write:
>>   > On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 09:02:20PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
>>   > > > This is not an important issue, except in so far as it means we are
>>   > > > not 100% C89 conformant.
>>   > > 
>>   > > Could you install these in the testsuite (as compile tests I guess),
>>   > > and mark them as xfail, and put in a comment saying that they are from
>>   > > DR106?  That way at least we'll remember.
>>   > 
>>   > I'll do better: here's the fix.  Simple case of code not having been
>>   > updated for the recent change that made void an incomplete type.
>>   > 
>>   > zw
>>   > 
>>   > 	* c-typeck.c (build_indirect_ref): Use COMPLETE_OR_VOID_TYPE_P
>>   > 	and VOID_TYPE_P.
>> Fine.
>
>Applied.
>
>>   > 	* gcc.c-torture/compile/20000701-1.c: New test.
>> What is the legal status of this code?  ie, did you lift it from the ftp/web
>> site in your earlier message, and what is the copyright status of that code?
>
>Yes, I lifted it almost verbatim from the web site.  I don't know what the
>copyright situation is - it's a C89 Defect Report, and there's no copyright
>tag either on it or at a higher level in the web site.  The author is Ron
>Guilmette <rfg@monkeys.com> - I've cc:ed him here.
>
>Ron, the question is whether we can legally take the example code out of
>your defect report (#106) and distribute it with GCC's test suite.


Any defect report that I may have filed, anytime in the past, which related
specifically and exclusively to either (a) some version of the ANSI/ISO C
standard or else (b) the GNU C or C++ compilers, or (c) some combination of
(a) and (b) is, as far as I am concerned, in the public domain.  (Note
that this is NOT the same as being copylefted.)

Note that I would have just simply said ``Yes, you have my permission'',
however (a) I don't even rememember the defect report you have cited anymore,
and (b) I have a number of other tests which break a number of other specific
(commercial) compilers and I *do not* consider THOSE to be public domain and
(c) I wanted to fully clarify for you my sentiments regarding GNU compiler
test cases and/or ANSI/ISO standard defect reports that I may have made
public in the past, so that you would know how I feel, in general, about
all such tests cases in case this same question ever comes up again in
the future.

I am very happy to have either GNU bug reports or C/C++ standard defect
reports that I have made public in the past used to enhance the quality
of the GNU compilers.

-- rfg