| To: | Eric DeVolder <edevolder@razamicroelectronics.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Differing results from cross and native compilers |
| From: | David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:18:46 -0700 |
| Cc: | Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <2E96546B3C2C8B4CA739323C6058204A0163548C@hq-ex-mb01.razamicroelectronics.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <2E96546B3C2C8B4CA739323C6058204A0163548C@hq-ex-mb01.razamicroelectronics.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929) |
Eric DeVolder wrote: Yes, it appears to me that the compiler (cc1) and assembler (as) invocations are the same. I've included the "-v" output of each below for reference. Furthermore, the -save-temps output .i files are effectively the same (differences due to cross vs. native paths, but that is it). Nonetheless, the output assembly source still contains differences!I'm curious if anybody examined the output of a cross and native toolchain of the same (recent) version? Some of the code generation options of the compiler are set to default values which are controlled by options passed to the compiler's configure program. Unless identical configure options are used in the native and cross builds, you might different default code generation options. David Daney |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Differing results from cross and native compilers, Thiemo Seufer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Differing results from cross and native compilers, Eric DeVolder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Differing results from cross and native compilers, Thiemo Seufer |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Differing results from cross and native compilers, Jim Wilson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |