This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Refactoring FORTIFY
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: George Burgess IV <george dot burgess dot iv at gmail dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:43:24 -0300
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Refactoring FORTIFY
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKh6zBFAGomCFc+Y9=qpH-2N6AonKUja1R+cWy=p_=T=rs29cQ@mail.gmail.com> <9ea2b3d3-c7d0-1d36-db4d-4de7b21067f1@linaro.org> <CAKh6zBFD=7itKYpytb70a1jbi2gd0-tznqj6eagQHMUHb_f1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
I am not sure if Google has an assignment that cover submission of all
its engineers. Also, I am not well versed in the requirements for the
FSF copyright assignment, the only point I have is the GLIBC wiki entry [1].
Joseph, is the wiki updated with latest guidelines and and does Google
current CLA already cover George work?
[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#FSF_copyright_Assignment
On 03/10/2017 17:53, George Burgess IV wrote:
> I have not signed a copyright assignment yet, though I'm more than
> happy to do so. Would
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
> be the appropriate form for me to fill out and send in?
>
> If it changes things, I wrote this as a part of my work with Google,
> who says they have a CLA on file with the FSF.
>
> Thank you,
> George
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Adhemerval Zanella
> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 03:26, George Burgess IV wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch that aims to substantially improve FORTIFY's
>>> usefulness with clang, and make defining FORTIFY'ed functions require
>>> less ceremony.
>>
>> Due the patch size and complexity and no indication on the message, it
>> would be good to know if you already have a copyright assignment, and
>> if your work is covered by it.
>>
>> You will need it to sort this out first so someone can actually look
>> into your patch (which I am interested in review btw).