🚀 go-pugleaf

In <dasherCHH8n7.5w1@netcom.com>, dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>In article <2dlmna$a7p@sefl.satelnet.org> skybird@satelnet.org (Scott Pallack) writes:
>>This is trivial to test.  Compile the program using an older compiler,
>>translate the program into fortran or something or hand-code it in
>>assembler.
>>Compare the outputs.
>>I'll bet they're the same.
>
>Do all un-spooked compilers produce the same output?

   Of course not. Even different versions of the same compiler are unlikely to
produce the same code. Depending on the optimization technology used, very small
changes in the source can result in fairly wide sweeping changes in the
generated code.

   I can assure folks that no such spooks have been placed in IBM's OS/2 C and
C++ compilers. It would be very difficult to do, difficult to hide unless you
reproduced that moby hack talked about before -- but if you did pull it off, it
would be even more difficult -- and I know of only a few people around here
capable of doing something like that -- and none of them would be in the least
bit inclined to do it. We have very tight schedules -- no time for that
sort of thing. The guy who started all this either must think he has a great
sense of humor, or he's seriously paraniod. (Not that paranoids don't have
enemies -- just not as many as they think.)

Regards,          | "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and
Ian R. Ameline    | likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such
(speaking for     | writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly
 myself only)     | simple-minded..."  Plato, _Phaedrus_