Message-Id: <200007280727.KAA27379@mailgw3.netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:27:13 +0200
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3980ADAC.5250D452@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:46:20 +0100)
Subject: Re: Packed attribute and __dpmi_paddr
References:  <3980ADAC DOT 5250D452 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:46:20 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> For some reason I think that gcc will only pad at the end of a structure
> for alignment purposes, but it could pad in the middle, if it wanted, for
> example, to align:

That's true.

> Finally, to my question: should all system-related (*) structures in DJGPP
> headers be packed?

Probably.  But IIRC, most of them already are packed (where they need
packing).  The only ones that aren't are probably the __dpmi_* ones.

I don't think we mind the ``ugliness''.  Did you ever look into the
Linux headers ? ;-)