Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!wookumz.ai.mit.edu!roland From: roland@ai.mit.edu (Roland McGrath) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Packing, Ordering, and Rearranging Message-ID: Date: 20 Aug 90 23:31:25 GMT References: <1030@lupine.NCD.COM> <56637@microsoft.UUCP> <195@xstor.UUCP> <1233@lupine.NCD.COM> Sender: news@wheaties.ai.mit.edu Organization: Hackers Anonymous International, Ltd., Inc. (Applications welcome) Lines: 30 In-reply-to: rfg@NCD.COM's message of 18 Aug 90 08:10:39 GMT In article <1233@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: You can definitely specify what you want the exact layout of a struct to be in C and have it be obeyed and have it be portable. People do it all the time. Now if only this were possible in C++. :-( Since this newsgroup is about the standard for C++, I'll assume you are talking about standard-conforming implementations of C as well. In this context, your assertion is patently false. Given the definition: struct { int elt0; int elt1; } foo; any of the following layouts are entirely permissable within standard C: 0: elt0 4: elt1 0: elt0 8: elt1 0: elt0 1000000:elt1 -- Roland McGrath Free Software Foundation, Inc. roland@ai.mit.edu, uunet!ai.mit.edu!roland