From:	"Michael Stewart" <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: annoying structure problem
Date:	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:31:52 +0100
Organization:	(Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd.
Lines:	22
Message-ID:	<7m1ul7$65r$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
References:	<7m1u1e$pnu$1 AT rockall DOT cc DOT strath DOT ac DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	hgty.capgemini.co.uk
X-Trace:	taliesin.netcom.net.uk 931429863 6331 194.42.240.2 (8 Jul 1999 10:31:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT corp DOT netcom DOT net DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date:	8 Jul 1999 10:31:03 GMT
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Alan Wills wrote in message <7m1u1e$pnu$1 AT rockall DOT cc DOT strath DOT ac DOT uk>...
>I have to read in this structure into a program.  The problem is, the
>compiler returns its size as 16 bytes when it should be 14 bytes.  If I
>change all the variables to unsigned short int then it gives 10 bytes (as
it
>should be).  If I change the 2nd variable to unsigned short int it gives 12
>bytes (as it should be).  But, if I change the last variable to unsigned
>short int it gives 16 bytes as the total space occupied.  Just what is
going
>on here?


From the FAQ:
`To produce faster code, GCC pads struct fields so that each field can be
accessed without delays; this sometimes produces struct size which is larger
than the sum of the sizes of its fields.'

Read the FAQ for more details (section 22.10)

Michael Stewart

- Raw text -