From: "Alexandre Devaure" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <005b01bfb593$eb5b1c60$3eefa8c0 AT leroyautom DOT com> <200005041044 DOT MAA17219 AT maggiore DOT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it> Subject: Re: structures size Lines: 65 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 12:59:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.51.236.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT proxad DOT net X-Trace: nnrp5.proxad.net 957445196 194.51.236.59 (Thu, 04 May 2000 14:59:56 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:59:56 CEST Organization: Guest of ProXad - France To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com pad2369 a écrit dans le message : 200005041044 DOT MAA17219 AT maggiore DOT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it... > Alexandre Devaure : > > Eli Zaretskii > > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Alexandre Devaure wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like the size of my structures is the same > that in Borland C > > because > > my > > > > program need to read a structure in flash written > by a program > > developed > > > > under Borland C. So, I want to use the -fpack- > struct option at > > compilation > > > > time. But it has no effect on the structure size > and I need to add the > > > > packed attribute on each structure. > > > > > > C programs or C++ programs? > > > > > > Can you post a short test program and its > compilation command line, which > > > can be used to reproduce this problem? > > > > > > > > > This is a C program : > > > > #include > > > > struct l { > > uchar c; > > uint o; > > uint s; > > }; > > struct st { > > struct l l; > > ulong d; > > uchar i; > > uchar t; > > ulong n; > > }; > > > > main() > > { > > printf("%d\n",sizeof(struct st)); > > } > > > > the command line is gcc -fpack-struct file.c > > Quoting section 22.11 of the FAQ list (v2.30): > > GCC 2.95.1 and 2.95.2 had bugs in their support of > -fpack-struct (the bug is corrected in v2.96 and > later). the bug *is* or *will be* corrected in v2.96 because the lastest version I saw at delorie site or gnu site is 2.95.2 TIA Alex