old intentional gcc bug?

[Brooks Moses]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23 June 2007 22:53, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> Indeed.  It would be interesting to confirm whether or not a copy of gcc
>> bootstrapped with a non-gcc compiler matched byte-for-byte with a copy
>> of gcc bootstrapped from gcc.  Not so much to look for intentional
>> things like this, but to see whether the bootstrapping actually does
>> achieve its goal of obtaining a result that's independent of the
>> bootstrapping compiler.  Has anyone actually tried it?
> 
>   That's kinda the whole point of bootstrapping :) any variation is in the
> stage1 compiler only, modulo such bad bugs in the native compiler that the
> stage1 gcc miscompiles stage2 gcc.

Right, exactly.  I'm an engineer; you give me a theory like that, and I 
become curious how much it's been tested in practice.  :)

- Brooks