From:	Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Padding Question
Date:	Sat, 07 Dec 1996 14:22:40 -0800
Organization:	Alcyone Systems
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<32A9EE30.7A212C19@alcyone.com>
References:	<32A810D9 DOT 366E9B4E AT m-net DOT arbornet DOT org> <32A85B15 DOT 4015 AT skygames DOT com> <32A8F16C DOT 596F AT cs DOT com> <32A91EFF DOT 6C6FD6F0 AT alcyone DOT com> <32A9CD2C DOT 6BAE AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	newton.alcyone.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich wrote:

> There is, as far as I know, no such easy way to test whether #pragma
> pack will work on any given compiler.  I have read many statements by
> experienced programmers, all of whom say that #pragma is a very bad
> thing to rely upon in a portable program.

But that was my whole point.  If you're counting on packed structures, you
have to do something compiler-specific to get them -- in DJGPP, that's
either with a #pragma or an attribute.  Considering that they are _both_
inherently nonportable, and in both cases you know the conditions which
they will be usable, I don't see why the one is any better than the other.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that both alternatives are
nonportable.

-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max AT alcyone DOT com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

- Raw text -