Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:28:34 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090129032834.GA79291@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20090129030950.GA9605@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090129032834.GA79291>