Message106181
| Author |
mark.dickinson |
| Recipients |
Alexander.Belopolsky, MrJean1, ajaksu2, barry, benjamin.peterson, inducer, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, noufal, pitrou, teoliphant |
| Date |
2010年05月20日.19:01:13 |
| SpamBayes Score |
6.819136e-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年05月20日 19:01:16 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, barry, teoliphant, pitrou, inducer, ajaksu2, MrJean1, benjamin.peterson, noufal, meador.inge, Alexander.Belopolsky |
| 2010年05月20日 19:01:16 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1274382076.29.0.855537835308.issue3132@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年05月20日 19:01:14 | mark.dickinson | link | issue3132 messages |
| 2010年05月20日 19:01:13 | mark.dickinson | create |
|