“Igor Kovalenko” <email@example.com> wrote in message
You guys sure this ‘contact your sales’ approach goes along nicely with
Well, lets see. The terms of the GPL insist that if I give someone a binary
compiled with modified GPL code, then I have to make the source code
available to that person. It says nothing about being obligated to give
everyone the code, only the people who have the binary. If you would like
an example of this, contract Redhat to do some custom work on gcc/gdb/etc.
for you. They will do the work, give you the binary and source and, perhaps
6 months later, perhaps never, release the code into the wild. So, if we
sell someone some modified GPL tools then we are required to give them the
In this case, I don’t think it’s quite the same though. I don’t believe
we’re trying to sell the altivec stuff but rather it’s just a custom branch
to our tools that isn’t in our main tree. I don’t know the details but I’m
pretty sure that we just gave it to Wayne as part of his support contract.
Like I said earlier, I remember when Marcin was building that branch for
Wayne a while ago. The only reason I said contact support or sales is
because I didn’t know the details of how the tools were to be given out and
I didn’t want to open my big mouth without knowing all the details. You may
not know this but I sometimes do that.
“Kris Warkentin” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
news:aajv8k$j2n$> email@example.com> …
I remember when we built the custom version for you but I didn’t know
sure what the whole deal was. I expect that if Alex were to contact his
Sales or Support person (probably support first) he should be able to
copy with no trouble.
“Wayne Fisher” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
news:aajnbi$7ho$> email@example.com> …
I was the one who originally asked for an AltiVec-aware GCC. I got a
QSSL’s AltiVec-aware GCC from them. So, if you ask the right person
probably get a copy too.
“Alex Cellarius” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
What is the status of this?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:25:39 -0500, “Kris Warkentin”
“Igor Kovalenko” <> email@example.com> > wrote in message
news:a31jqq$l16$> firstname.lastname@example.org> …
I think the status is ‘sorry, we forgot about that statement’ >
“Aww, come on baby…that was just pillow talk” - Ash
All kidding aside, I’m not sure what became of this but we’ll look
“Wayne Fisher” <> email@example.com> > wrote in message
news:a2peaa$rjs$> firstname.lastname@example.org> …
I’ve been thinking about creating some simple benchmarks to
our hardware against the power of the AltiVec engine in the
However, I can’t seem to find anything in the documentation on
enabling support for the AltiVec in the compiler.
Have Motorola’s extensions for AltiVec been added to QSSL’s
I found a QSSL press release that said that it should have
“As part of its support for the MPC7400 processor, QNX plans
Motorola’s proposed AltiVec C/C++ language extensions, so
write AltiVec-enabled drivers or applications using standard C
assembly language needed. This support is slated for 1Q 2000.
information, or for OEM pricing for the QNX RTOS, contact QNX
What is the current status?