delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
X-Trace: | 124685539/mk-filter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.66.17.75/None/johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk |
X-SBRS: | None |
X-RemoteIP: | 79.66.17.75 |
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: | johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk |
X-MUA: | Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 |
X-IP-BHB: | Once |
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: | true |
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: | AqIEALCYWElPQhFL/2dsb2JhbACEVbo6WI8chkQ |
Message-ID: | <003901c969db$cd57fde0$4001a8c0@mycomputer> |
From: | "John Emmas" <johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> |
To: | <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
References: | <006b01c965c1$6a7c6300$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <003a01c965fe$539063c0$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <495291CD DOT 1000207 AT bmts DOT com> <004701c96993$ea2fa5f0$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0812291032260 DOT 2944 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> |
Subject: | Re: Cygwin struct alignment |
Date: | Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:35:11 -0000 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Note-from-DJ: | This may be spam |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Ford" Subject: Re: Cygwin struct alignment > > Google attribute packed as I don't remember the exact syntax, but I fail > to see how this actually helps your cause. > Thanks Brian. It should help me because it will hopefully guarantee that structures of a given size will occupy a predictable number of bytes. In other words, if the total bytes needed to accommodate a given struct's members is 138, the struct should occupy exactly 138 bytes - instead of being rounded up to 140 or whatever. After googling, I think the relevant compiler switch is -fpack-struct. I'll give it a try tomorrow but from my initial test (just compiling one source file) it produced hundreds of warnings of the type:- ignoring packed attribute on unpacked non-POD field. This seems to be generated for simple, conventional arrays, such as char myArray[64]; Is there anything available to suppress this warning? John -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |