Author meador.inge
Recipients Alexander.Belopolsky, MrJean1, ajaksu2, barry, benjamin.peterson, inducer, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, noufal, pitrou, teoliphant
Date 2010-05-20.18:13:23
SpamBayes Score 0.000337197
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1274379204.87.0.289526100439.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Granted, yes.  But I wouldn't expect the same padding for 'BT{BI}' and 
> 'BBI'.  'BT{BI}' should match a C struct which itself has an embedded 
> struct.  For C, I get the following results on my machine:

I wasn't sure.  The C99 standard does not specify what the behavior should be.  It is implementation defined.  I guess most implementations just set the alignment of the struct with the alignment of its most demanding member.

I need to change how the alignment for nested structures is computed.  Right now alignments are being computed as if the 'T{...}' codes were not there.  I will hold off until we decide what that rule should be, but I think the most demanding element rule seems reasonable.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-20 18:13:25meador.ingesetrecipients: + meador.inge, barry, teoliphant, mark.dickinson, pitrou, inducer, ajaksu2, MrJean1, benjamin.peterson, noufal, Alexander.Belopolsky
2010-05-20 18:13:24meador.ingesetmessageid: <1274379204.87.0.289526100439.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-05-20 18:13:23meador.ingelinkissue3132 messages
2010-05-20 18:13:23meador.ingecreate