Author mark.dickinson
Recipients Alexander.Belopolsky, MrJean1, ajaksu2, barry, benjamin.peterson, inducer, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, noufal, pitrou, teoliphant
Date 2010-05-20.19:01:13
SpamBayes Score 6.81914e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1274382076.29.0.855537835308.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Another snippet, from the latest public draft of the System V x86-64 ABI [1]:

"""Structures and unions assume the alignment of their most strictly aligned compo- nent. Each member is assigned to the lowest available offset with the appropriate alignment. The size of any object is always a multiple of the object‘s alignment."""

I'd be fine with using the largest alignment, as above, instead of computing an lcm;  I can't believe it'll ever make a difference in practice.  For an empty struct (not allowed in C99, but allowed as a gcc extension, and allowed by the struct module), the alignment would be 1, of course.

[1] http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-20 19:01:16mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, barry, teoliphant, pitrou, inducer, ajaksu2, MrJean1, benjamin.peterson, noufal, meador.inge, Alexander.Belopolsky
2010-05-20 19:01:16mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1274382076.29.0.855537835308.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-05-20 19:01:14mark.dickinsonlinkissue3132 messages
2010-05-20 19:01:13mark.dickinsoncreate