Re: gcj -v --help: ecj switches

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Andrew Haley wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:05:03AM CET:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> * 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
>>>>
>>>>  ; 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>
> 
>>>> 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?
>> All material in gcc must be assigned the the FSF by the copyright owner.
>> A rewrite that didn't derive from the Eclipse work would be OK.
> 
> OK.  Hmm, well, the way I read this, it means that I can't write this
> patch any more, nor can anyone do it easily who has looked at the above
> link.  I mean, how many ways are there to express that some warning
> complains about, say, an unused variable?

No, that's not a problem.  If you're simply stating matters of
fact in the only possible way, that's OK.  If you cut and paste
large chunks  of text, that's not OK.  Use your judgement.

Andrew.