“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:aalpfr$moj$1@inn.qnx.com…
You guys sure this ‘contact your sales’ approach goes along nicely with
GPL?
Well, lets see. The terms of the GPL insist that if I give someone a binary
compiled with modified GPL code, then I have to make the source code
available to that person. It says nothing about being obligated to give
everyone the code, only the people who have the binary. If you would like
an example of this, contract Redhat to do some custom work on gcc/gdb/etc.
for you. They will do the work, give you the binary and source and, perhaps
6 months later, perhaps never, release the code into the wild. So, if we
sell someone some modified GPL tools then we are required to give them the
source code.
In this case, I don’t think it’s quite the same though. I don’t believe
we’re trying to sell the altivec stuff but rather it’s just a custom branch
to our tools that isn’t in our main tree. I don’t know the details but I’m
pretty sure that we just gave it to Wayne as part of his support contract.
Like I said earlier, I remember when Marcin was building that branch for
Wayne a while ago. The only reason I said contact support or sales is
because I didn’t know the details of how the tools were to be given out and
I didn’t want to open my big mouth without knowing all the details. You may
not know this but I sometimes do that. 
cheers,
Kris
“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:aajv8k$j2n$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Hi Wayne,
I remember when we built the custom version for you but I didn’t know
for
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
get
a
copy with no trouble.
cheers,
Kris
“Wayne Fisher” <> wayne.fisher@avvidasystems.com> > wrote in message
news:aajnbi$7ho$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Hi,
I was the one who originally asked for an AltiVec-aware GCC. I got a
copy
of
QSSL’s AltiVec-aware GCC from them. So, if you ask the right person
you
can
probably get a copy too.
Wayne
“Alex Cellarius” <> acellarius@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:1103_1019655577@pentiumii…
Hi
What is the status of this?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:25:39 -0500, “Kris Warkentin”
kewarken@qnx.com
wrote:
“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@home.com> > wrote in message
news:a31jqq$l16$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
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
into
it
immediately.
cheers,
Kris
“Wayne Fisher” <> wayne.fisher@vtecna.com> > wrote in message
news:a2peaa$rjs$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Hi,
I’ve been thinking about creating some simple benchmarks to
compare
some
of
our hardware against the power of the AltiVec engine in the
PPC
7400.
However, I can’t seem to find anything in the documentation on
support
for
enabling support for the AltiVec in the compiler.
Have Motorola’s extensions for AltiVec been added to QSSL’s
release
of
the
GCC compiler?
I found a QSSL press release that said that it should have
been
ready
for
1Q
2000:
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/oct18_99-Motorola.html
“As part of its support for the MPC7400 processor, QNX plans
to
implement
Motorola’s proposed AltiVec C/C++ language extensions, so
developers
can
write AltiVec-enabled drivers or applications using standard C
tools; no
assembly language needed. This support is slated for 1Q 2000.
For
more
information, or for OEM pricing for the QNX RTOS, contact QNX
Software
Systems directly.”
What is the current status?
Thanks,
Wayne
\