Xref:	news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1271
Path:	news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!silas.cc.monash.edu.au!junaid
From:	junaid AT silas DOT cc DOT monash DOT edu DOT au (Mr A. Walker)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: GCC/DJGPP Weirdness (structure padding stuff)
Date:	31 Jul 1995 11:18:50 GMT
Organization:	Monash University
Lines:	19
References:	<DCFMss DOT JD5 AT jade DOT mv DOT net>
Nntp-Posting-Host:	silas.cc.monash.edu.au
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il) wrote:

: On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, A.Appleyard wrote:

: > Why not pack structs etc anyway by default? On a PC, (rounding every member's
: > width to a multiple of 2 or 4 bytes) achieves nothing except wasting store and
: > annoying people who want to make a struct match some assembly-coded table (as
: > e.g. when calling some interrupts).

: This is not true.  There is a considerable penalty on a 486 or better CPU 
: for unaligned accesses, so even on a PC struct padding makes a lot of 

	I think what was originally intended, was that shorts were 2-byte
aligned and ints where 4-byte aligned. As you would expect, a multiple of
2 shorts must be used consecutively to preserve int alignment (otherwise
gcc must pad a short). This then would work intuitively.

Junaid

- Raw text -