How to determine if a linux binary file is 32-bit or 64-bit?












17















A 32-bit kernel (x86) can only run 32-bit code.
A 64-bit kernel (x86_64) can run both 32-bit and 64-bit code.



I'd like to know if a machine can run an executable: in other words, I have a binary file and I have to run it on 32-bit Ubuntu, but I don't know if the binary file is 32-bit executable.



I used the file command, specifying the executable to be checked and this was the returned result:




ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically
linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24,
BuildID[sha1]=0x7329fa71323a6cd64823c2594338682065cd6e07, not stripped











share|improve this question





























    17















    A 32-bit kernel (x86) can only run 32-bit code.
    A 64-bit kernel (x86_64) can run both 32-bit and 64-bit code.



    I'd like to know if a machine can run an executable: in other words, I have a binary file and I have to run it on 32-bit Ubuntu, but I don't know if the binary file is 32-bit executable.



    I used the file command, specifying the executable to be checked and this was the returned result:




    ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically
    linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24,
    BuildID[sha1]=0x7329fa71323a6cd64823c2594338682065cd6e07, not stripped











    share|improve this question



























      17












      17








      17


      6






      A 32-bit kernel (x86) can only run 32-bit code.
      A 64-bit kernel (x86_64) can run both 32-bit and 64-bit code.



      I'd like to know if a machine can run an executable: in other words, I have a binary file and I have to run it on 32-bit Ubuntu, but I don't know if the binary file is 32-bit executable.



      I used the file command, specifying the executable to be checked and this was the returned result:




      ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically
      linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24,
      BuildID[sha1]=0x7329fa71323a6cd64823c2594338682065cd6e07, not stripped











      share|improve this question
















      A 32-bit kernel (x86) can only run 32-bit code.
      A 64-bit kernel (x86_64) can run both 32-bit and 64-bit code.



      I'd like to know if a machine can run an executable: in other words, I have a binary file and I have to run it on 32-bit Ubuntu, but I don't know if the binary file is 32-bit executable.



      I used the file command, specifying the executable to be checked and this was the returned result:




      ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically
      linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24,
      BuildID[sha1]=0x7329fa71323a6cd64823c2594338682065cd6e07, not stripped








      linux elf






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jul 5 '16 at 23:01









      Braiam

      4,04731852




      4,04731852










      asked Aug 2 '14 at 12:16









      enzom83enzom83

      191116




      191116






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          21














          The answer to the question in the title is right there at the beginning of the output:




          ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64




          ELF is the Executable and Linkable Format, the binary executable file format most commonly used by Linux.



          x86-64 is the architecture of the binary, the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set originally introduced by AMD. For reasons that are beyond me, Microsoft refers to it as "x64", but that's the same thing.



          If you need to know the architecture of the kernel itself, you can use uname -mpi. For example, on my system, that prints:




          x86_64 unknown unknown




          which means that I am running an x86-64 kernel.



          If you're interested in the CPU itself, look at /proc/cpuinfo for details about the CPU(s) detected by the Linux kernel.



          A 32-bit 80x86 executable is identified by file as, for example:




          ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped




          which tells us that it's a 32-bit executable using the Intel 80386 instruction set (possibly with extensions).



          Note that it isn't quite as simple as 32-bit versus 64-bit architectures. For example, the Linux kernel supports 32-bit architectures like Intel 80386, AVR32, S/390 and Unicore32. On the 64-bit side of things, Linux is usable on PA-RISC, x86-64, Itanium and Alpha, among others. Not all distributions provide binaries for all architectures, however (and I doubt there are any distributions that target all supported CPU architectures equally). So if you want to know whether a given binary will be executable on a given system, you need to consider the architecture, rather than the CPU's native word size.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

            – Paul Draper
            Aug 24 '14 at 5:32






          • 1





            @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

            – a CVn
            Mar 27 '16 at 13:15











          • Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

            – Paul Draper
            Mar 27 '16 at 18:52













          • @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

            – a CVn
            Mar 28 '16 at 8:47













          • Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

            – phuclv
            Nov 14 '17 at 1:15



















          4














          The 5th byte of a Linux binary executable file (ELF format, see Wikipedia) is 1 for a 32 bit executable, 2 for a 64 bit executable.



          To see this for a program named "foo", type at the command line



          od -t x1 -t c foo | head -n 2





          share|improve this answer

































            1














            If you want to avoid the 'head' pipe, you can do



            od -An -t x1 -j 4 -N 1 foo


            This will print 01 if foo is a 32-bit binary and 02 if it's 64. It may still include some leading spaces - worth knowing if you're doing any automated comparisons on the results.



            If found this useful in a basic Ubuntu Docker container where 'file' was not installed.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "3"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f791506%2fhow-to-determine-if-a-linux-binary-file-is-32-bit-or-64-bit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              21














              The answer to the question in the title is right there at the beginning of the output:




              ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64




              ELF is the Executable and Linkable Format, the binary executable file format most commonly used by Linux.



              x86-64 is the architecture of the binary, the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set originally introduced by AMD. For reasons that are beyond me, Microsoft refers to it as "x64", but that's the same thing.



              If you need to know the architecture of the kernel itself, you can use uname -mpi. For example, on my system, that prints:




              x86_64 unknown unknown




              which means that I am running an x86-64 kernel.



              If you're interested in the CPU itself, look at /proc/cpuinfo for details about the CPU(s) detected by the Linux kernel.



              A 32-bit 80x86 executable is identified by file as, for example:




              ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped




              which tells us that it's a 32-bit executable using the Intel 80386 instruction set (possibly with extensions).



              Note that it isn't quite as simple as 32-bit versus 64-bit architectures. For example, the Linux kernel supports 32-bit architectures like Intel 80386, AVR32, S/390 and Unicore32. On the 64-bit side of things, Linux is usable on PA-RISC, x86-64, Itanium and Alpha, among others. Not all distributions provide binaries for all architectures, however (and I doubt there are any distributions that target all supported CPU architectures equally). So if you want to know whether a given binary will be executable on a given system, you need to consider the architecture, rather than the CPU's native word size.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

                – Paul Draper
                Aug 24 '14 at 5:32






              • 1





                @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

                – a CVn
                Mar 27 '16 at 13:15











              • Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

                – Paul Draper
                Mar 27 '16 at 18:52













              • @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

                – a CVn
                Mar 28 '16 at 8:47













              • Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

                – phuclv
                Nov 14 '17 at 1:15
















              21














              The answer to the question in the title is right there at the beginning of the output:




              ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64




              ELF is the Executable and Linkable Format, the binary executable file format most commonly used by Linux.



              x86-64 is the architecture of the binary, the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set originally introduced by AMD. For reasons that are beyond me, Microsoft refers to it as "x64", but that's the same thing.



              If you need to know the architecture of the kernel itself, you can use uname -mpi. For example, on my system, that prints:




              x86_64 unknown unknown




              which means that I am running an x86-64 kernel.



              If you're interested in the CPU itself, look at /proc/cpuinfo for details about the CPU(s) detected by the Linux kernel.



              A 32-bit 80x86 executable is identified by file as, for example:




              ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped




              which tells us that it's a 32-bit executable using the Intel 80386 instruction set (possibly with extensions).



              Note that it isn't quite as simple as 32-bit versus 64-bit architectures. For example, the Linux kernel supports 32-bit architectures like Intel 80386, AVR32, S/390 and Unicore32. On the 64-bit side of things, Linux is usable on PA-RISC, x86-64, Itanium and Alpha, among others. Not all distributions provide binaries for all architectures, however (and I doubt there are any distributions that target all supported CPU architectures equally). So if you want to know whether a given binary will be executable on a given system, you need to consider the architecture, rather than the CPU's native word size.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

                – Paul Draper
                Aug 24 '14 at 5:32






              • 1





                @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

                – a CVn
                Mar 27 '16 at 13:15











              • Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

                – Paul Draper
                Mar 27 '16 at 18:52













              • @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

                – a CVn
                Mar 28 '16 at 8:47













              • Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

                – phuclv
                Nov 14 '17 at 1:15














              21












              21








              21







              The answer to the question in the title is right there at the beginning of the output:




              ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64




              ELF is the Executable and Linkable Format, the binary executable file format most commonly used by Linux.



              x86-64 is the architecture of the binary, the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set originally introduced by AMD. For reasons that are beyond me, Microsoft refers to it as "x64", but that's the same thing.



              If you need to know the architecture of the kernel itself, you can use uname -mpi. For example, on my system, that prints:




              x86_64 unknown unknown




              which means that I am running an x86-64 kernel.



              If you're interested in the CPU itself, look at /proc/cpuinfo for details about the CPU(s) detected by the Linux kernel.



              A 32-bit 80x86 executable is identified by file as, for example:




              ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped




              which tells us that it's a 32-bit executable using the Intel 80386 instruction set (possibly with extensions).



              Note that it isn't quite as simple as 32-bit versus 64-bit architectures. For example, the Linux kernel supports 32-bit architectures like Intel 80386, AVR32, S/390 and Unicore32. On the 64-bit side of things, Linux is usable on PA-RISC, x86-64, Itanium and Alpha, among others. Not all distributions provide binaries for all architectures, however (and I doubt there are any distributions that target all supported CPU architectures equally). So if you want to know whether a given binary will be executable on a given system, you need to consider the architecture, rather than the CPU's native word size.






              share|improve this answer















              The answer to the question in the title is right there at the beginning of the output:




              ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64




              ELF is the Executable and Linkable Format, the binary executable file format most commonly used by Linux.



              x86-64 is the architecture of the binary, the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set originally introduced by AMD. For reasons that are beyond me, Microsoft refers to it as "x64", but that's the same thing.



              If you need to know the architecture of the kernel itself, you can use uname -mpi. For example, on my system, that prints:




              x86_64 unknown unknown




              which means that I am running an x86-64 kernel.



              If you're interested in the CPU itself, look at /proc/cpuinfo for details about the CPU(s) detected by the Linux kernel.



              A 32-bit 80x86 executable is identified by file as, for example:




              ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped




              which tells us that it's a 32-bit executable using the Intel 80386 instruction set (possibly with extensions).



              Note that it isn't quite as simple as 32-bit versus 64-bit architectures. For example, the Linux kernel supports 32-bit architectures like Intel 80386, AVR32, S/390 and Unicore32. On the 64-bit side of things, Linux is usable on PA-RISC, x86-64, Itanium and Alpha, among others. Not all distributions provide binaries for all architectures, however (and I doubt there are any distributions that target all supported CPU architectures equally). So if you want to know whether a given binary will be executable on a given system, you need to consider the architecture, rather than the CPU's native word size.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Aug 2 '14 at 12:43

























              answered Aug 2 '14 at 12:31









              a CVna CVn

              24.5k973120




              24.5k973120








              • 1





                "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

                – Paul Draper
                Aug 24 '14 at 5:32






              • 1





                @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

                – a CVn
                Mar 27 '16 at 13:15











              • Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

                – Paul Draper
                Mar 27 '16 at 18:52













              • @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

                – a CVn
                Mar 28 '16 at 8:47













              • Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

                – phuclv
                Nov 14 '17 at 1:15














              • 1





                "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

                – Paul Draper
                Aug 24 '14 at 5:32






              • 1





                @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

                – a CVn
                Mar 27 '16 at 13:15











              • Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

                – Paul Draper
                Mar 27 '16 at 18:52













              • @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

                – a CVn
                Mar 28 '16 at 8:47













              • Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

                – phuclv
                Nov 14 '17 at 1:15








              1




              1





              "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

              – Paul Draper
              Aug 24 '14 at 5:32





              "reasons that are beyond me". I still remember the day I found out that x64 was 64 bits and x86 was 32 bits.

              – Paul Draper
              Aug 24 '14 at 5:32




              1




              1





              @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

              – a CVn
              Mar 27 '16 at 13:15





              @PaulDraper The term "x86" has a clear etymology; it dates back to the 80x86 series CPUs from Intel, differentiating them from their predecessors like the 8008 or 8080, and these days most often refers to the 32-bit (IA-32 instruction set) capable variants (80386, 80486, Pentium and newer). These more recent model numbers were often abbreviated by omitting the "80" at the beginning, so (implied 32-bit) x86 matches 386, 486, etc. However, I'm not aware of any 64-bit CPUs with model numbers of a similar structure ending in "64"; certainly neither AMD nor Intel use such a naming scheme today.

              – a CVn
              Mar 27 '16 at 13:15













              Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

              – Paul Draper
              Mar 27 '16 at 18:52







              Though x64 is a very common term. Random example: microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42482

              – Paul Draper
              Mar 27 '16 at 18:52















              @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

              – a CVn
              Mar 28 '16 at 8:47







              @PaulDraper It's common now in the Microsoft world, but its etymology remains unclear in a way that that for "x86" does not.

              – a CVn
              Mar 28 '16 at 8:47















              Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

              – phuclv
              Nov 14 '17 at 1:15





              Microsoft refers to x86_64 as AMD64 in their installers

              – phuclv
              Nov 14 '17 at 1:15













              4














              The 5th byte of a Linux binary executable file (ELF format, see Wikipedia) is 1 for a 32 bit executable, 2 for a 64 bit executable.



              To see this for a program named "foo", type at the command line



              od -t x1 -t c foo | head -n 2





              share|improve this answer






























                4














                The 5th byte of a Linux binary executable file (ELF format, see Wikipedia) is 1 for a 32 bit executable, 2 for a 64 bit executable.



                To see this for a program named "foo", type at the command line



                od -t x1 -t c foo | head -n 2





                share|improve this answer




























                  4












                  4








                  4







                  The 5th byte of a Linux binary executable file (ELF format, see Wikipedia) is 1 for a 32 bit executable, 2 for a 64 bit executable.



                  To see this for a program named "foo", type at the command line



                  od -t x1 -t c foo | head -n 2





                  share|improve this answer















                  The 5th byte of a Linux binary executable file (ELF format, see Wikipedia) is 1 for a 32 bit executable, 2 for a 64 bit executable.



                  To see this for a program named "foo", type at the command line



                  od -t x1 -t c foo | head -n 2






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 14 at 14:23









                  Alexey Ivanov

                  3,65731748




                  3,65731748










                  answered Nov 13 '17 at 21:54









                  Chris MapleChris Maple

                  491




                  491























                      1














                      If you want to avoid the 'head' pipe, you can do



                      od -An -t x1 -j 4 -N 1 foo


                      This will print 01 if foo is a 32-bit binary and 02 if it's 64. It may still include some leading spaces - worth knowing if you're doing any automated comparisons on the results.



                      If found this useful in a basic Ubuntu Docker container where 'file' was not installed.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        1














                        If you want to avoid the 'head' pipe, you can do



                        od -An -t x1 -j 4 -N 1 foo


                        This will print 01 if foo is a 32-bit binary and 02 if it's 64. It may still include some leading spaces - worth knowing if you're doing any automated comparisons on the results.



                        If found this useful in a basic Ubuntu Docker container where 'file' was not installed.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          1












                          1








                          1







                          If you want to avoid the 'head' pipe, you can do



                          od -An -t x1 -j 4 -N 1 foo


                          This will print 01 if foo is a 32-bit binary and 02 if it's 64. It may still include some leading spaces - worth knowing if you're doing any automated comparisons on the results.



                          If found this useful in a basic Ubuntu Docker container where 'file' was not installed.






                          share|improve this answer













                          If you want to avoid the 'head' pipe, you can do



                          od -An -t x1 -j 4 -N 1 foo


                          This will print 01 if foo is a 32-bit binary and 02 if it's 64. It may still include some leading spaces - worth knowing if you're doing any automated comparisons on the results.



                          If found this useful in a basic Ubuntu Docker container where 'file' was not installed.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Oct 25 '18 at 9:10









                          Quentin Stafford-FraserQuentin Stafford-Fraser

                          1112




                          1112






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f791506%2fhow-to-determine-if-a-linux-binary-file-is-32-bit-or-64-bit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                              Alcedinidae

                              Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]