Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:05:57 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: MINGW vs DJGPP
In-Reply-To: <3ADDD586.15573.EE76FB@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010418180351.29608G@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 Wed, 18 Apr 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> > > Compiler           switch          reported size of struct vp
> > > djgpp gcc 2.95.2   -fpack-struct   80 eighty
> > > djgpp gcc 2.95.3   -fpack-struct   79 seventynine
> > > mingw gcc 2.95.2   -fpack-struct   79 seventynine
> > > djgpp gcc 2.95.2                   80 eighty
> > > djgpp gcc 2.95.3                   80 eighty
> > > mingw gcc 2.95.2                   88 eightyeight
> > > 
> > > when manually added, the sum of the sizes of the struct members is _79_
> > 
> > So it looks like -fpack-struct does work, at least in 2.95.3.
> 
> With my test case I'm getting following results:
> 
> DJGPP port of gcc-2.95.3 : doen't work

This is _really_ strange: how come the same binary yields different 
results?  Does the bug depend on the struct layout perhaps?

I also don't understand why are there differences between MinGW, DJGPP, 
and GNU/Linux for the same GCC version: these all target the same 
processor, so the alignment of struct fields should be the same, no?