From:	mcneils AT applique DOT sedd DOT trw DOT com (Sean McNeil)
Subject:	Re: one point (Was [Re: FW: Re: wxwin port])
19 Nov 1996 13:38:27 -0800 :
Sender:	daemon AT cygnus DOT com
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<199611191742.JAA05595.cygnus.gnu-win32@app006221.sedd.trw.com>
Original-To:	dje AT cygnus DOT com
Original-Cc:	scottc AT net-community DOT com, garp AT opustel DOT com, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<199611190108.RAA05782@canuck.cygnus.com> (message from Doug
	Evans on Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17: 08:48 -0800)
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

Doug,

> I don't believe this assessment can be correct.
> If GCC doesn't align structures [by default] the way the native compiler does,
> then that is a bug, end of story.

My $.02 on what I think you mean...

This has always been a portability issue and gcc never has to align
structures the way the native compiler (whatever that is for Win32)
does.  This is not _really_ a bug.  However, for the compiler to be
useful and to be able to call system routines, it better have the
include files defined in such a way that the structures are
equivalent.  In gcc, this would probably mean using some attribute or
pragma.

Practically speaking, this has not been required because gcc attempts
to do alignment the same way as is expected for a particular machine.
That is because it's easier to use the system includes than to have to
come up with new ones for each port.  For Win32, include files had to
be written, though, as the compiler must be purchased separately.  So,
just fix the includes :-)
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -