This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: old intentional gcc bug?

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
Cc: Geert Bosch <bosch at adacore dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:11:36 -0700
Subject: Re: old intentional gcc bug?
References: <900468.6755.qm@web59302.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <200706242220.58202.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <30668DE6-822D-433A-B53A-B5CD0FF905AE@adacore.com> <200706251959.33129.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>

On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:

Probably. But, as Mike told me privately, STABS are sensitive to the build directory, so I tried again and got identical executables byte-for- byte:

Cool. Glad you could verify them on a byte for byte basis. This helps keep your compiler vendors honest by ensuring that their distributed binary (both for solaris compiler and the original gcc one used to build gcc) doesn't _seem_ to contain a propagating bad code virus.

Now, please tell me you didn't also compile cmp yourself... :-) Or wait, do we trust cmp from the vendor, oh no, my head explodes. :-)

References:
- old intentional gcc bug?
  - From: krith htirk
- Re: old intentional gcc bug?
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: old intentional gcc bug?
  - From: Geert Bosch
- Re: old intentional gcc bug?
  - From: Eric Botcazou

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]