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=S+FPkGoq0h3RaohaOIGcwoT26ONmrs6g61EZQTCblOM=;
	b=WNCVA0qYgTXdFRdGYwo2kpxqKQ2Mvcflci7CFlaXARAm0ag+9YToNcff/vKmtjhWVC
	MMJADKmAHSxkNR5xmvhJvPZWx8q6ZyeqWj90/v+5gbKlHoDlxpVsnZsqGGBPSesbcna4
	I+vvXX5FdptwLsHI4VQatURlOrpZW85rjFWTNiLvmiFoohw8loJcTTRNXGVaTjvhY/+9
	01Rxm28BhrodeqFAp1O6Vui3v9QletDp7dczSmie7UQWKijVJETJmyWOD1UPxIntxqfG
	i7NmVVRoxXIruuv3bzbU4I67wreiwmRju9wfaXNJJ05dFeXBFAPMrNjLdhvf3mAYjWFJ
	GDBw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.50.143.4 with SMTP id sa4mr5767792igb.56.1441224449086; Wed,
	02 Sep 2015 13:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<83zj14abdc.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>
	<ms63dr$3k4$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vABL08je+e-uOpgkSAR+_Zrs80AkAzQEbXUc6CJhOq4AA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83fv2wc2jf DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vDk747gQcYU+j9TL_QFiikkYkcENLYFO1mSSOa7dSv5nA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<837fo8byx8 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<201509021853 DOT t82Irxko012877 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<83zj14abdc DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Sep 2015 23:07:28 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vDeQYxWex2FMutFRr3aeMGZK3VUCUpiK=dGGNHHpDAfKw@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 9/2/15, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
<djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:53:59 -0400
>> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
>>
>> > Could someone who feels more at home with assembly please take a look?
>> > DJ?
>>
>> The difference is in GAS itself, which chooses a longer form of the JE
>> opcode here (and no, I can't think of a good reason why):
>
> Perhaps this should be reported to the Binutils maintainers.
>
>> 32:    21d3:	0f 84 47 00 00 00    	je     2220 <_fire_grenade2+0x270>
>> 64:    21d3:	74 4b                	je     2220 <_fire_grenade2+0x270>
>>
>> There are no other root differences - every other difference is due to
>> addresses being different, and even that is limited as an alignment
>> shortly after that resynchromizes everything.
>
> Thanks.
>
> So I guess we can conclude that these differences can be disregarded,
> at least with a new enough version of GCC.  The fact there are
> differences is, of course, an annoyance, but it looks like we will
> have to live with that.
>

OK.  Many thanks to all.

- Raw text -