Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Rjack wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
>> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
>> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
>> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
>> interpret and put together reading CPU specification.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The structural semantics of a "switch" statement are dictated by the
> programming language specification. The the implementation of that
> structure is dictated by the CPU specification.

Wrong fool. You don't know any assembler coding.

> So what's so original about that?

If you knew assembler you wouldn't ask.