This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcj -v --help: ecj switches
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:38:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: gcj -v --help: ecj switches
- References: <20090301072035.GI6143@ins.uni-bonn.de>
Ping!
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:20:35AM CET:
> I have a patch (accompanying those other ones on gcc-paches) to fix
>
> --- a/gcc/java/lang.opt
> +++ b/gcc/java/lang.opt
> @@ -209,212 +209,213 @@ Java
>
> ;
> ; Warnings handled by ecj.
> -; FIXME: document them
> ;
>
>
> but I did start off with the help texts from
> <http://help.eclipse.org/stable/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/guide/jdt_api_compile.htm>
> which AFAICS falls under the Eclipse Public License - v 1.0
> <http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html>.
>
> Now my question, before I blindly post this to {gcc,java}-patches and
> thus create potential legal hassles for whoever works on it: was it
> OKed (by the SC or FSF) to integrate such material into GCC?
> If not, would you think that it suffices if I reformulate the entries
> sufficiently, or do we need to start playing the legal game, if the
> situation is to be improved?