Hi, all --

We have an existing build of gcc 2.95.2 in an environment that is a real
mess, so we're rebuilding the tools in an orderly fashion so that we can
shove the old junk off of a cliff.  I was surprised to find, though, that
for even the simplest "hello, world" programs the generated files were
different between our old and new copies.

Unfortunately, I don't know how the old one was built; it was taken from
the Edition 13 CDs of 1999 and built (I have to think that it was
compiled locally; it's in a unique path instead of /usr/local).  I
downloaded 2.95.2 from the web when I grabbed 3.0.4 and built it as

  ../$APP-$VER/configure \
    --prefix=$BASE \
    --exec-prefix=$BASE/$MYOS/$MYMAJ/$MYMIN/$MYCHIP \
    --enable-shared \
    --with-gnu-as \
    --with-gnu-ld \

which seem incongruous enough but could be the clue.

Is there perhaps a way for a mere mortal to reverse-engineer the binaries
and see what the differences are?  This wouldn't be of particular
interest, since they certainly work, except that changing the compiled
results means regression testing our entire product to ensure that it
still works as it's been signed off and thus means a *lot* more work.

Finally, I'm terribly sorry to be so rude but I really have only this
one question about gcc and so I'm not subscribed to the mailing lists.
Please be sure to copy me on your replies.  If you'd like to send them
all to me, I'll be happy to summarize my findings when the ideas quit
flowing in.


TIA & HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G                      * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) davidtg@justpickone.org * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) davidtgwork@justpickone.org
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!