From:	"Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: sizeof(long double) = 12 ???
Date:	Mon, 3 Aug 1998 10:14:20 -0700
Organization:	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville
Lines:	11
Message-ID:	<6q4r56$cgn$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com>
References:	<199808020838 DOT EAA10324 AT delorie DOT com> <35C4540B DOT 75DEE699 AT alcyone DOT com> <35C5797D DOT 48365D65 AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ros51675cra.rose.hp.com
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

>(586+).  This is the reason gcc will *always, no matter what* allocate
>12 bytes to a long double (ok, 16 bytes would be better for 586+ (and
>pgcc might), but this is even more of a waste of memory, so you have a
>compramise).
no.  This would have consequences like breaking code compiled with regular
gcc and pgcc.  There are -m options for the i386 that can control alignment
of doubles and long doubles but they break the ABI so you have to recompile
everything (libraries, start up code ....)

- Raw text -