[cfarm-users] Is there a list of funny C compilers?

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

On 4/27/25 02:54, Jing Luo wrote:
> On 2025-04-24 11:07, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>> On 4/23/25 01:17, Jing Luo wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> (a rough translation from Chinese)
>>> [Q3] Is the source code of Spacemit's gcc available
>>> [A3] No. But [we] didn't make a lot of changes on gcc, basically 
>>> it's [the same as] the open source (sic.) version. After all, the 
>>> only thing added was assembler support, i.e. changing binutils. The 
>>> patches supporting the instruction will be ready to be released, so 
>>> that everyone who build their own toolchain can also patch [it] 
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> Oh well.
>>>
>>> [7] https://forum.spacemit.com/t/topic/387
>>>
>> That "No." is a GPL violation right there, as I understand it. Can 
>> the Chinese original be read as "GCC is unmodified from the GNU 
>> version" or are they attempting to minimize the fact that they 
>> distribute a modified *compiler*?
>
> The latter one I think. "didn't make a lot of changes" = "made some 
> changes".

Right...

>> GNU binutils is another package, but could be conflated as part of 
>> GCC because GCC uses binutils to generate binary output, and binary 
>> distributions of GCC therefore normally include binutils.
>>
>> This leads to a possible scenario:  they are distributing a build of 
>> unmodified GCC with their patched binutils bundled.  Is the promised 
>> binutils patch available?
>
> No, there is simply no source tarballs or patches for the binaries 
> (gcc+binutils) they distribute.
>
So then we run down the details according to 
<URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html>:

  * the precise name of the product
  * the name of the person or organization distributing it
  * email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for how to
    contact the distributor(s)
  * the exact name of the package whose license is violated
  * how the license was violated

You have the first two of those; I believe Martin Guy found at least 
some email addresses; our discussion seems to indicate that we are 
looking at GPL violations on both GCC and GNU binutils; and of course, 
the sources are completely missing.

The FSF collects reports at: license-violation at gnu.org


-- Jacob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tetaneutral.net/pipermail/cfarm-users/attachments/20250427/e16ce699/attachment.htm>