Re: Possibly OT: GCC 2.96 on PPC for VxWorks 5.5

["Paul Smith" <psmith at nortel dot com>]

%% "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:

  >> That would be ideal.  I was half hoping someone on this list might
  >> have one...  I am using *a* version of the WRS 2.96 compiler I
  >> found on the 'net but obviously the source I have is not identical
  >> to the Solaris compiler I'm using.

  dk> OK, looks like you do need to refresh your memory of the GPL after
  dk> all.  Your right to a copy of the source is against the people you
  dk> got the binary from; if you got it from someone other than WRS, it
  dk> is *those* people who owe you a copy of the source.  Go back to
  dk> them.

  dk> Seriously.  How on earth can you expect anyone on the list to know
  dk> if they've got the source to the *same* compiler as you if you
  dk> just got it from some random website and haven't mentioned that
  dk> fact before?  What use would it do for someone to send you a copy
  dk> of the WRS sources if we have no idea whether that's what was used
  dk> to build the binary you've got because you didn't get it from WRS?
  dk> The only possible way to have any confidence that the sources
  dk> you've got correspond to the binary you've been using is if you
  dk> get them from the same source.

Ouch...

I was unclear, which is my bad.  FYI, I have a very clear understanding
of the GPL and how it works: you can find my alter-ego as
psmith@gnu.org; I've been using GNU apps for LOTS years and I've been
the maintainer of GNU make for about 10 years, plus contributing to
other F/OSS projects.

My situation is this:

  * I have an official BSP directly from Wind River, with support for
    Solaris hosting, and I got all my Solaris binaries, etc. from them
    (or rather, I didn't personally but Nortel did--this was before my
    association with the project: if I'd been there at the beginning I
    would have insisted on getting the source CD then as well!)  I
    already gave all the version information I have in previous posts.

  * When I wanted to move to Linux I went looking for the source.  I
    found source on the 'net for the WRS GCC 2.96+ version (I recognize
    the layout, scripts, READMEs, etc. from my WRS GCC 2.7.2).

  * I found source for two different 2.96+-based versions of the
    compiler: one which is very close to what I have (as best as I can
    tell from the version info, which is all I have to go on) and
    another which is newer, with lots of WRS patches applied.

  * I realize that ideally I'd get the source directly from WRS, but
    they don't offer it along with the compiler: you have to make a
    special request and then they send you their "source CD".  This is
    perfectly legal under the GPL of course.  Unfortunately the GPL
    doesn't say anything about a timeframe within which they have
    fulfill the license, and as I've said based on my experience with
    GCC 2.7.2 it can take a number of months and involve a frustrating
    amount of phone tag etc.  Maybe they've improved in this area since
    they've started to embrace Linux/Eclipse/etc.

    Additionally they're allowed to charge for the CD, which would mean
    going through the major hassle of cutting a P.O. for it.  To WRS's
    credit, IIRC they didn't charge me anything for the CD the last time
    I did this, so this might not be a problem.

  >> gcc version gcc-2.96 (2.96+ MW/LM) 19990621 AltiVec VxWorks 5.5
  >> 30526 65115 [...]

  dk> Look, will you just stop that!  You keep on going and getting new
  dk> and unknown binaries without telling anyone where they came from
  dk> and you hope we'll know what they are?  For god's sake, next time
  dk> you download one, DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE AT THE SAME TIME FROM THE
  dk> SAME PLACE!

I haven't downloaded a single binary.  Everything I've downloaded is the
compiler source.  Downloading binaries would certainly be silly and
useless.  It's true that I can't be sure that it's the identical source
for the compiler I have for Solaris, and sure enough, it turns out not
to be.

The above info is from the second, newer set of compiler source I found,
after I compiled it locally.  I do wonder what the "MW/LM" extension to
the version means...


Anyway, unless someone has any other information on this topic it looks
like I'm off to battle this out from here.

Thanks!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@nortel.com>           HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These are my opinions--Nortel takes no responsibility for them.

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq