X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:58:56 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin struct alignment
Message-ID:	<20081229185856.GA1942@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-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> <00cc01c969e3$57127590$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<00cc01c969e3$57127590$4001a8c0@mycomputer>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 06:29:09PM -0000, John Emmas wrote:
> Christopher / Reini - thanks for your tips.
>
>On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Reini Urban wrote:
>>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".

I still can't shake the feeling that you're attempting to do this with
trial and error and googling rather than reading the gcc documentation.

You can also find various flavors of gcc documentation at gcc.gnu.org.

--
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 -