Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: modi.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 17:11:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
To: Anders Norlander <anorland AT hem2 DOT passagen DOT se>
cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch, Version 4: Problem solved
In-Reply-To: <372F5765.35BFBD66@hem2.passagen.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.990504162048.10507M-100000@modi.xraylith.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Anders Norlander wrote:

> Yes, I agree to this as well. Although old gcc don't.

That was a bug in gcc fixed in recent years, and not a feature. 

> Hmm. I hadn't considered that MS may have used different packings.
> 
> > I also checked the code using `#pragma pack(4)', and get the same result
> > from both compilers.
> 
> The question is should we go for PACKED on particular structures or
> should
> everything in winnt be pack(4)?
> 

As usual, my lack of win32 api knowledge disqualifies me from making any
comment here. This particular case was a hunch based on the structure
definition, but I haven't cross checked with MS API doc/header yet.

I believe there are just a few places where MS uses different packings,
and there was some discussion some time ago where these are. Jacob Navia
is one of the few people who've endured through most of these when
creating his headers. 

You can't win them all, especially all at once. There will always be bugs
and they'll be fixed as they come up.

Regards,
Mumit