old intentional gcc bug?

[Mike Stump]

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.  :-)