From:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: structures size
Date:	Wed, 03 May 2000 19:31:47 +0400
Organization:	MTU-Intel ISP
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<39104663.2DD3423F@mtu-net.ru>
References:	<TCVP4.3574$724 DOT 7298116 AT nnrp5 DOT proxad DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ppp110-152.dialup.mtu-net.ru
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	gavrilo.mtu.ru 957378998 46373 212.188.110.152 (3 May 2000 18:36:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru
NNTP-Posting-Date:	3 May 2000 18:36:38 GMT
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en,ru
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

how about "#pragma pack (push, 1)" before structure definition and "#pragma pack
(pop)" after?

Btw, don't forget that "int" is 4 byte long in GCC, while BC++ 3.1 has 2 bytes.
The same with near pointers.

HTH.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru

Alexandre Devaure wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I'd like the size of my structures is the same that in Borland C because my
> program need to read a structure in flash written by a program developed
> under Borland C. So, I want to use the -fpack-struct option at compilation
> time. But it has no effect on the structure size and I need to add the
> packed attribute on each structure. The option worked on gcc 2.8 so, the
> fact it has no effect on gcc 2.95 is bug or this option is now disable?
> TIA
> Alex

- Raw text -