Petri Latvala wrote:
[snip]
> Also, the first 16 bytes will differ in an ELF format .o, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/09/msg00201.html
That's incorrect, strictly speaking. The first (magic) bytes have
to be identical, only the padding bytes could be different (but are
usually zer
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:38:46AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Why not? Is there something non-deterministic in the compilation
> process?
>
> Ideally, version x of gcc should produce the same output natively
> as when cross-compiling.
>
> Or have I missed something important?
-frandom-s
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
>
> The idea is to cr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> Or have I missed something important?
Yes. There are a jillion different machine code programs that do the
same thing and a compiler could generate any one of them in response
to the same source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
* Will Newton
| A suprising number of programs embed the current date, time, hostname etc. in
| their user visible version strings. The Linux kernel for example, does not
| compile identically twice unless you hack it slightly.
Even with the same preprocessed source?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 14:01, John Hasler wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
>
> The i
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
The idea is to cross-compile and native-compile _for_ _the_ _same_ _ta
Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler, then...
> And a hell of a
9 matches
Mail list logo
