From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12855 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2013 11:03:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 12839 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2013 11:03:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: multi.imgtec.com Received: from multi.imgtec.com (HELO multi.imgtec.com) (194.200.65.239) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:03:24 +0000 From: Andrew Bennett To: Joel Brobecker CC: Mike Frysinger , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Steve Ellcey Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add MIPS UFR support Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774E8022@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> References: <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774C8579@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> <201311300357.23710.vapier@gentoo.org> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774DAC91@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774E7990@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> <20131219043738.GF3493@adacore.com> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774E7FCD@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> <20131219105920.GG3493@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20131219105920.GG3493@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SEF-Processed: 7_3_0_01192__2013_12_19_11_03_22 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00745.txt.bz2 >> I am happy to add a copyright header to this file. However, I can only= =20 >> find three assembler files in the sim/testsuite/sim directory that conta= in=20 >> a copyright header (two of these are mips tests). I was therefore wonde= ring >> if it is better to follow the prior art and not contain a header? I don= 't=20 >> know the history here, so would someone be able to advise me? > > In this case, we've had clear directions from the FSF that new files > should always have a copyright header. The lack of header in other > files is a potential issue which we'd like to solve, if we had the > time (to do the research)... But, in the meantime, making sure that > new files have the header allows us to at least not make things worse. Thats great. Many thanks for clarifying this. Regards, Andrew