From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7820 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2008 13:52:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6926 invoked by uid 48); 6 Mar 2008 13:51:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080306135128.6925.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/35466] Different assembly codes on 32bit and 64bit hosts In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-06 13:51 ------- Then we should fix this bug by requiring 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT for x86 targets rather than by declaring it will never be fixed. It can be closed when we've switched to 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT (or as a duplicate if we already have a bug open for the issue). I don't recall any disagreement to the stated importance of generating the same code independent of host. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01598.html "I do think that generating the same code, independent of host system, is a very important property of GCC's design, just like generating the same code independent of whether or not we're compiling with -g." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01789.html "I've always thought these principles were meant to be sacrosanct" -- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35466