Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c > #1359

Re: Structure Packing.

Show all headers | View raw

John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 21:35:59 UTC-4, Keith Thompson  wrote:
>> John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> writes:
>> > Hi hopefully just a quick question.
>> > struct s{
>> >    uint16_t var1;
>> >    uint16_t var2;
>> > };
>> >
>> > would it ever be acceptable for a compiler to align var2 on a 4/8
>> > byte boundary, for speed, architectural or indeed any reason.
[snip]
>> Bottom line: a compiler *could* add padding, but in practice it's
>> vanishingly unlikely to do so.
>> 
>> If you're concerned, you could add something like:
>> 
>>     assert(sizeof (struct s) == 4);
>
> :| Sorry your assumptions are correct and thank you for the
> clarification.  Actually I think the compiler would be right to
> reserve a native uint space for each, as it would take less code space
> to access it, and be quicker.

Assuming uint16_t is 2 bytes and unsigned int is 4 bytes, I don't think
that approach would work.  var1 and var2 *must* be 2 bytes each (again,
assuming CHAR_BIT==8), and if there's padding following them, then that
padding isn't part of var1 or var2.  I'm fairly sure it wouldn't work on
a big-endian system.  It *might* work on a little-endian system, but I
get the feeling that there are some corner cases that would fail.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Structure Packing. John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-06 17:27 -0700
  Re: Structure Packing. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-06 21:19 -0400
    Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-11 22:39 -0400
      Re: Structure Packing. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-06-12 09:21 -0400
        Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-12 11:51 -0400
          Re: Structure Packing. Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-06-12 18:37 +0200
            Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-12 15:06 -0400
              Re: Structure Packing. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-06-12 16:22 -0400
                Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-12 17:44 -0400
                Re: Structure Packing. Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-06-13 15:53 +0200
                Re: Structure Packing. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-18 12:37 +0300
        Re: Structure Packing. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-12 16:22 +0000
          Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-12 15:24 -0400
            Re: Structure Packing. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-06-12 16:33 -0400
              Re: Structure Packing. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-12 17:17 -0400
  Re: Structure Packing. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-06-06 18:35 -0700
    Re: Structure Packing. John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-06 21:58 -0700
      Re: Structure Packing. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-06-06 23:54 -0700
        Re: Structure Packing. John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-07 07:47 -0700
          Re: Structure Packing. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-07 12:39 -0400
    Re: Structure Packing. jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-06-07 11:14 +0200
      Re: Structure Packing. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-06-07 09:46 -0700
        Re: Structure Packing. John Kearney <dethrophes@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-07 11:57 -0700

csiph-web