This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: paul at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:38:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- References: <10601161743.AA12121@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:43:13PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Only if you assume a "cross" compiler and a true native compiler
> generate different code. I certainly hope that isn't the case.
>
> Why not? It's a pretty strong statement to assume they generate *exactly* the
> same code under all circumstances and it seems unnecessary. All we require
> is that they both generate *correct* code. It's perfectly reasonable for the
> optimizers to behave slightly differently in host and cross configurations,
> such as in what they fold. Clearly, it's advantageous to minimize these
> differences, and we do that, but I think having to reduce them to zero
> is too strong a requirement, especially since it's so easy to avoid
> starting a bootstrap with a cross-compiler.
As a heavy debugger of cross compilers I strongly disagree with this
sentiment. Host dependencies of any sort are a bug.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery