X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=vPw/mSJPSvProan0VyzZ9i7GDwY36YX82p1UKjwGyws=;
	b=BXvn4a11lTBq9U3yZhN++WMkMH/WryhH3oQgQI85GFK2oGoVlVZbCs2Ljew4puwupF
	LYvU4oDNKYX0JYXFK8l+YTqm/8bXn7I7/7UWlnQ6ww8Iqs+FzxhPMjfPvKArrPpVu42R
	2lRuqnLIWUhGEMj4qdH2I2+gq+uYOMvqHzxnxXxewnfPzHl+NnJRE2yp3B8HTerdu4VJ
	MfblAOge3eHDvdwvAmx6iJCjQohV/w0BQNyhXfoAVvPiYmEYuJCRoI6BJ597f5qCjOAu
	+MHLVKS5LVezZIpUe/yzNlaehkOzFuiteAhq3qNLxL1gAbgZ2Lw/D817lUWJuBD/srfO
	+JVg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.50.97.33 with SMTP id dx1mr3746082igb.1.1441132898010; Tue,
	01 Sep 2015 11:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<83pp22asrk.fsf@gnu.org>
References:	<CAA2C=vBjWACN4ZNsYTeCWXOr9vU9s2s23ZaXvLuCgE=OEWK1Vg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83d1y2cf7e DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vCu9fjcEDr_3_FLMXoRzuvmXw57zRkwchbYRD1SpqS4NA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83pp22asrk DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:41:37 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vA3Zsd+z1BvXCKEP8d6x_N4YxEXJkyu513mjBhLGz8scQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: different binary output with 32- and 64-bit hosted compilers
From:	"Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 9/1/15, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
<djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:14:05 +0300
>> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]"
>> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
>>
>> Tried with gcc5, not as bad as gcc-3.4.6 but still shows a difference
>> (src/debug/fsdb/expr.o still differs)
>
> AFAICS, all the differences are due to sign extension.  The bit
> patterns are the same.
>

Do you think bug in upstream gcc or bug in djgpp porting of it?

- Raw text -