Message106177
| Author |
meador.inge |
| Recipients |
Alexander.Belopolsky, MrJean1, ajaksu2, barry, benjamin.peterson, inducer, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, noufal, pitrou, teoliphant |
| Date |
2010年05月20日.18:13:23 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00033719692 |
| 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年05月20日 18:13:25 | meador.inge | set | recipients:
+ meador.inge, barry, teoliphant, mark.dickinson, pitrou, inducer, ajaksu2, MrJean1, benjamin.peterson, noufal, Alexander.Belopolsky |
| 2010年05月20日 18:13:24 | meador.inge | set | messageid: <1274379204.87.0.289526100439.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年05月20日 18:13:23 | meador.inge | link | issue3132 messages |
| 2010年05月20日 18:13:23 | meador.inge | create |
|