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:	124698396/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:	AqIEAIOlWElPQhFL/2dsb2JhbACEVblsWI9LhkQ
Message-ID:	<00cc01c969e3$57127590$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> <4959125A DOT 6020708 AT x-ray DOT at>
Subject:	Re: Cygwin struct alignment
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:29:09 -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

Christopher / Reini - thanks for your tips.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Reini Urban"
>
> Which "Cygwin compiler"?
> I have about a dozen compilers in my cygwin environment.
> If you mean gcc-core-3.4.4-3 or gcc-mingw-core-3.4.4-20050522-1 please say
> so.
>
Oops sorry, I did miss out that important fact didn't I?  I meant
gcc-core-3.4.4-3


>  Cygwin per se infers no struct alignment at all
>
I'll be doing some further checks tomorrow but up until now, the struct
alignment of gcc-core-3.4.4-3 seems to match MS Visual C++ when VC++
is set to 8-byte alignment (at least - it matches it more closely than when
I set VC++ to 1-byte alignment).  I'm not suggesting that either compiler
is at 'fault' in any sense;  they just do the same job slightly differently.
This is why I want to find out what happens when they're both set to
"no packing".

Cheers,

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/

- Raw text -