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: <83d1y2cf7e DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83fv2wc2jf DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <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: 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]" To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Precedence: bulk On 9/2/15, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:53:59 -0400 >> From: DJ Delorie >> >> > 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.