From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:57:26 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: MINGW vs DJGPP
Message-ID:	<3ADDD586.15573.EE76FB@localhost>
References:	<3ADD8755 DOT 71826091 AT ma DOT tum DOT de>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010418173114.29608B@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On 18 Apr 2001, at 17:31, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Waldemar Schultz wrote:
> 
> > sorry for replying to my own post.
> > I used gcc 2.95.3(20010315) and got these confusing results:
> > 
> > Compiler           switch          reported size of struct vp
> > djgpp gcc 2.95.2   -fpack-struct   80 eighty
> > djgpp gcc 2.95.3   -fpack-struct   79 seventynine
> > mingw gcc 2.95.2   -fpack-struct   79 seventynine
> > djgpp gcc 2.95.2                   80 eighty
> > djgpp gcc 2.95.3                   80 eighty
> > mingw gcc 2.95.2                   88 eightyeight
> > 
> > when manually added, the sum of the sizes of the struct members is _79_
> 
> So it looks like -fpack-struct does work, at least in 2.95.3.

With my test case I'm getting following results:

DJGPP port of gcc-2.95.3 : doen't work
gcc-2.95.3 under Linux (binary from slackware-current): doesn't work
(-fpack-struct doesn't change anything in these cases for my example)

gcc-2.95.2 DJGPP-to-MINGW cross-compiler : works (no padding between fields)
MINGW port of gcc-2.95.2: works

gcc-3.0 14 March CVS version built for DJGPP:  works

Andris
 

- Raw text -