Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: size_t in a struct |
| Date | 2011-05-21 16:31 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnhb8nzl47.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | <ir6bhi$fcu$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ir6d98$e50$1@dont-email.me> <ir6mjl$d08$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lntycpyp2p.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <ir8uj5$gq1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Again, *why* are you so concerned about minimizing padding? What bad
>> thing would happen if there were a little padding between members in
>> your structs?
>>
>> If you'll tell us what your actual goal is, we'll be better able to help
>> you.
>
> Thanks for that information.
>
> I want to avoid padding in order to minimize the size of my structs in
> order to prevent caches misses where possible. I would expect that the
> overhead from using memcpy and unsigned char arrays, would outweight the
> savings from optimizing cache usage - happy to be corrected though.
Have you performed measurements that indicate that your program's
performance is unacceptably slow, and that making your structs
slightly smaller will actually help? Are the hours you're spending
on this worth the CPU time you expect to save?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
size_t in a struct Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 18:22 +0000
Re: size_t in a struct Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 14:52 -0400
Re: size_t in a struct Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 21:31 +0000
Re: size_t in a struct Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-21 09:51 +1200
Re: size_t in a struct Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 21:34 +0300
Re: size_t in a struct Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-25 07:54 +1200
Re: size_t in a struct "[the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-20 15:06 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-20 22:51 +0000
Re: size_t in a struct Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-20 15:39 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 18:00 +0000
Re: size_t in a struct Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-21 14:12 -0600
Re: size_t in a struct Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-21 16:31 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-22 10:08 +0100
Re: size_t in a struct Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:24 -0500
Re: size_t in a struct Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-22 10:37 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 14:18 -0400
Re: size_t in a struct Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-22 12:17 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 16:33 -0400
Re: size_t in a struct Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 02:05 -0500
Re: size_t in a struct Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-23 11:21 +0100
Re: size_t in a struct Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 19:40 -0500
Re: size_t in a struct Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-24 01:25 +0100
Re: size_t in a struct Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 20:43 -0500
Re: size_t in a struct gordonb.d6jvy@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-05-22 17:48 -0500
Re: size_t in a struct Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-21 15:43 +0000
Re: size_t in a struct Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-20 11:59 -0700
Re: size_t in a struct Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-20 22:24 +0100
csiph-web