Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:59:51 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) Message-ID: <AA1F8B8E-1A6A-4F62-A3B4-75A0E868826A@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090129032834.GA79291@duncan.reilly.home> References: <20090128155340.GA75143@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <200901291243.00378.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <49811242.7030106@delphij.net> <200901291330.18007.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090129030950.GA9605@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090129032834.GA79291@duncan.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 07:09:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: >> The FSF has not decided what to do about the runtime libraries. >> These are currently gplv2+link time exception. In the future, >> the libraries may be gplv3 + some new link time exception. > > The libraries in question are those for long long multiply and > other low-level code generation short-cuts, aren't they? I > understodd that crt0.o and libc.a were both BSD on FreeBSD. > > So, to the extent that we currently use the gcc/gpl+exception > libraries, is it a reasonable proposition to supply versions of > our own, or would they necessarily be a derivative work of GCC > simply because only gcc requires those particular runtime > libraries? > > Cheers, > > Andrew I believe we're still using libgcc.so though, which is a runtime library used at multiple levels IIRC, and GPLv3 along with the compiler no doubt. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AA1F8B8E-1A6A-4F62-A3B4-75A0E868826A>