Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/05/06/09:19:17

From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: structures size
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 17:41:46 +0400
Organization: MTU-Intel ISP
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <>
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10005041827250 DOT 48816-100000 AT ieva05 DOT lanet DOT lv> <3911D576 DOT 947D53CF AT mtu-net DOT ru> <3913074E DOT 9405129F AT bigfoot DOT com> <39133B43 DOT 5BC03E9 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <3913F41A DOT D8DD3A7D AT bigfoot DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: 957620510 21735 (6 May 2000 13:41:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 May 2000 13:41:50 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:
> Hello.
> "Alexei A. Frounze" wrote:
> >
> > Richard Dawe wrote:
> > > Is it better because you can nest packing pragmas this way?
> >
> > Yup. This was the idea I have in mind. Seems to be a bit better. Right?
> I prefer "__attribute__((packed))" myself on the actual structure, 

AFAIK it must be added to each structure member and that is not very nice.

> but
> nestable packing pragmas seem like a good idea if you're using them in
> header files. Is this push/pop a gcc extension?

I'm not sure it's a GCC extension. Watcom C/C++ has the same stuff. I think
it's a common thing.

Alexei A. Frounze

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019