On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 06:52:49AM -0700, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> The point of adding that flag was to create byte-for-byte identical
> compiler binaries. Have you verified that hacking on T_CFLAGS (instead
> of XCFLAGS) actually does this?
Frankly after around the 10th compile of gcc just to chec
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 07:56:02AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 06:52:49 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:55:50PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
> >> I don't know how important the difference
> >> between _most_ compiles and _all_ compiles is, but T_C
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 06:52:49 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:55:50PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
>> I don't know how important the difference
>> between _most_ compiles and _all_ compiles is, but T_CFLAGS seems to
> work
>> just as well.
>
> The point of adding that flag
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:55:50PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
> I don't know how important the difference
> between _most_ compiles and _all_ compiles is, but T_CFLAGS seems to work
> just as well.
The point of adding that flag was to create byte-for-byte identical
compiler binaries. Have you ve
