Re: [PATCH 0/3] fenv support round 2

Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]> Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:51:51 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lib.newlib
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On Aug 28 10:45, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:27 AM Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 28 10:06, [email protected] wrote:
> > > From: Joel Sherrill <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > There are three patches in this set and hopefully two will be uncontroversial.
> > >
> > > (1) The common include/fenv.h was copied from riscv, so delete the
> > > copy in the libc/machine/riscv directory.
> > >
> > > (2) Add glibc extension FE_NOMASK_ENV to template sys/fenv.h.
> > > Code was copied from Cygwin fenv.h.
> > >
> > > (3) Add x86_64 and i386 fenv support by copying from Cygwin. No
> > > functional changes were made. This needs some help.
> > >
> > >    (a) x86_64 isn't picking up fenv.c. Not sure what isn't bootstrapping right.
> > >        Help needed to get it integrated into libm build.
> >
> > Not sure yet, still looking into the code.
> 
> Jeff's regenerate script wasn't even generating a x86_64 Makefile.am. I managed
> to force it by hand but it's not being picked up.
> 
> Ahhh.. configure.host needs to have this:
> 
>  x86_64)
>         machine_dir=x86_64
>         libm_machine_dir=x86_64
> 
> But there must be more to it. Now the build looks for the file but it
> isn't in the build tree.
> 
> There must be another piece of magic I am still missing.
> 
> > >    (b) I added a copyright to fenv.c since it just said "part of Cygwin".
> > >        I hope it is right.
> >
> > No, that's not how it should be licensed since that implies GPL3+.
> > We're moving the file into newlib so we should loosen the copyright
> > so that the code is usable for non-GPLed code.  And as the sole
> > copyright holder, Red Hat can move the file to another copyright.
> >
> > So what you can do here is to remove the entire Cygwin header from
> > the file and just keep a BSD-3-Clause SPDX header.
> 
> I must not have been clear. I replaced the Cygwin comment with a
> copy of a Red Hat BSD-2-Clause I found in another file. It was a move
> in the right direction but I wasn't sure.
> 
> Just tell me what you want.

You didn't touch the header.  It has still the Cygwin copyright notice.
BSD-3-Clause or BSD-2-Clause for both files is fine, just pick one.
SPDX header is simpler and, presumably, the future.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)