Update; cpphs for GHC?
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jul 26 06:40:34 EDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 08:53 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Peter Tanski wrote:
> > StgCRun.S is done for x86 (still need to do x86_64 and ia64). Builds fine.
> > What about using cpphs with GHC? I could set it up as either a program
> > run by ghc for 'runCpp' or as a library called by runCpp.
> We've avoided cpphs so far because of the license. But if there's a good
> technical reason to use it (and there does seem to be), then by all means
> go ahead.
> The library route would be preferable, unless it causes any licensing
BTW, is it the practical problem of LGPL'ed Haskell code (difficulties
with dynamic linking compared to (L)GPL'ed C code like gcc, readline
etc) that is the problem, or is it the
Just want to clarify what our real licensing restrictions are, given
that ghc already does bundle GPL programs (mingw) and link to LGPL
libraries (readline, gmp). If it's just the practical problem that
LGPL'ed Haskell code can't be so easily relinked as C code (stable ABI
and all that) then we might be able to ask for a static linking
exception for cpphs.
Alternatively we could bundle the cpphs program rather than using the
cpphs library. The cpphs library is LGPL, while the cpphs program is
GPL, but then cpp is GPL too. The practical problem is the same in both
cases, that MS folk can't contribute fixes for cpp(hs).
More information about the Cvs-ghc