Hi,
here's a preliminary manpage for romcc. Some details need to be added, e.g. the author, the extact license, bug-report address etc. Who wrote romcc, and which license applies? There's a COPYING file in the directory, so it's probably the GPL. Version 2 or v2 and later?
Btw, is romcc still maintained? The romcc.c file says RELEASE_DATE "15 November 2004".
Also, the test-suite doesn't build for me (I simply typed 'make'):
[...] <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: warning: used: %mm7 <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: too few registers make: *** [tests/simple_test26.S-O2-mmmx] Error 1
Uwe.
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [060907 22:19]:
Hi,
here's a preliminary manpage for romcc. Some details need to be added, e.g. the author, the extact license, bug-report address etc. Who wrote romcc, and which license applies? There's a COPYING file in the directory, so it's probably the GPL. Version 2 or v2 and later?
Eric Biederman wrote it. ebiederman@lnxi.com GPL v2 is safe to assume. Eric?
Btw, is romcc still maintained? The romcc.c file says RELEASE_DATE "15 November 2004".
I guess it is considered "stable" for what it does. Want to take it over? ;-)
Also, the test-suite doesn't build for me (I simply typed 'make'):
[...] <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: warning: used: %mm7 <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: too few registers make: *** [tests/simple_test26.S-O2-mmmx] Error 1 Uwe Hermann
Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de writes:
- Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [060907 22:19]:
Hi,
here's a preliminary manpage for romcc. Some details need to be added, e.g. the author, the extact license, bug-report address etc. Who wrote romcc, and which license applies? There's a COPYING file in the directory, so it's probably the GPL. Version 2 or v2 and later?
Eric Biederman wrote it. ebiederman@lnxi.com GPL v2 is safe to assume. Eric?
Yes. GPL v2, like the rest of LinuxBIOS.
Btw, is romcc still maintained? The romcc.c file says RELEASE_DATE "15 November 2004".
I guess it is considered "stable" for what it does. Want to take it over? ;-)
Yes. It is pretty stable. There are some rare bugs. But right now it has been easier to work around them then to fix them :(
Also, the test-suite doesn't build for me (I simply typed 'make'):
[...] <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: warning: used: %mm7 <built-in>:1.0: simple_test26.c:20.26: too few registers make: *** [tests/simple_test26.S-O2-mmmx] Error 1 Uwe Hermann
Odd. I know a few of tests are expected to fail that way, but I thought I had them marked. I would have to look into it in more detail to give a better answer.
Eric
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 03:19:22PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Yes. GPL v2, like the rest of LinuxBIOS.
OK, here's an updated version. When was romcc started? I used "Copyright 2003-2006 Eric W. Biederman", taking the numbers from the svn logs... Is that correct?
Not all of LinuxBIOS is currently marked as "GPL v2", though. There are many files which say "GPL v2 or later" (see previous license thread)...
What are people here thinking about GPL versions? Do you explicitly want LinuxBIOS to be GPL v2? If so, why? I personally usually use "GPL v2 or later", which will prevent hassle when GPL v3 will be here (and judging from what I've read about GPL v3, that'll be fine with me, too).
I guess it is considered "stable" for what it does. Want to take it over? ;-)
Um, no thanks :) That's way too complex for me to understand anyways...
Odd. I know a few of tests are expected to fail that way, but I thought I had them marked. I would have to look into it in more detail to give a better answer.
I'm using gcc 4.1.2 if that matters.
I was thinking about maybe making romcc more quiet, currently it's spitting out tons of compile warnings such as:
romcc.c:17732: warning: 'print_live_variables' defined but not used
Uwe.
Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de writes:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 03:19:22PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Yes. GPL v2, like the rest of LinuxBIOS.
OK, here's an updated version. When was romcc started? I used "Copyright 2003-2006 Eric W. Biederman", taking the numbers from the svn logs... Is that correct?
Sounds roughly right. Basically LinuxBIOS v2 and romcc are the same age.
Not all of LinuxBIOS is currently marked as "GPL v2", though. There are many files which say "GPL v2 or later" (see previous license thread)...
Sure, but as a group the sum total winds up being GPL v2.
What are people here thinking about GPL versions? Do you explicitly want LinuxBIOS to be GPL v2? If so, why? I personally usually use "GPL v2 or later", which will prevent hassle when GPL v3 will be here (and judging from what I've read about GPL v3, that'll be fine with me, too).
In part we are derived from the Linux kernel, and that is v2 only. And big chunks of LinuxBIOS are v2 only for the same reason.
The License file proved is v2 of the License and not every contributor has been willing for v2 or later.
I guess it is considered "stable" for what it does. Want to take it over? ;-)
Um, no thanks :) That's way too complex for me to understand anyways...
Odd. I know a few of tests are expected to fail that way, but I thought I had them marked. I would have to look into it in more detail to give a better answer.
I'm using gcc 4.1.2 if that matters.
Not unless romcc got miscompiled.
I was thinking about maybe making romcc more quiet, currently it's spitting out tons of compile warnings such as:
romcc.c:17732: warning: 'print_live_variables' defined but not used
That might help. Defined but not used is fairly benign as warnings go, so it isn't where I would start :)
Eric
I had them marked. I would have to look into it in more detail to give a better answer.
I'm using gcc 4.1.2 if that matters.
Not unless romcc got miscompiled.
Slightly OT but since the topic came up. Eric do you have any info on what toolchains could successfully compile older versions of romcc?
From say around the r1619 range.
We have been trying to solve the via EPIA vt8601 problem but its complicated by the fact that most of the older revs won't build anymore. Compiling romcc pukes on a lot of them. Upgrading romcc and then trying and older rev gets ugly quick.
What toolchain were you on when you did most of your work on romcc?
"Richard Smith" smithbone@gmail.com writes:
I had them marked. I would have to look into it in more detail to give a better answer.
I'm using gcc 4.1.2 if that matters.
Not unless romcc got miscompiled.
Slightly OT but since the topic came up. Eric do you have any info on what toolchains could successfully compile older versions of romcc?
From say around the r1619 range.
We have been trying to solve the via EPIA vt8601 problem but its complicated by the fact that most of the older revs won't build anymore. Compiling romcc pukes on a lot of them. Upgrading romcc and then trying and older rev gets ugly quick.
gcc 3.2 or 3.3 is what I remember using.
What toolchain were you on when you did most of your work on romcc?
At the time it was a fairly modern setup, so you shouldn't need to got back to far.
Eric
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:04:14AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
What are people here thinking about GPL versions? Do you explicitly want LinuxBIOS to be GPL v2? If so, why? I personally usually use "GPL v2 or later", which will prevent hassle when GPL v3 will be here (and judging from what I've read about GPL v3, that'll be fine with me, too).
In part we are derived from the Linux kernel, and that is v2 only. And big chunks of LinuxBIOS are v2 only for the same reason.
The License file proved is v2 of the License and not every contributor has been willing for v2 or later.
OK, that makes it very unlikely that we'll have a fully "GPL v2 or later" LinuxBIOS (as a whole), so it's GPL v2 and will remain that way.
Cheers, Uwe.
-
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Richard Smith -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann