Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo!rehrauer
From: rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: cross-compiling
Message-ID: <4dba9918.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 31 Oct 90 15:49:00 GMT
References: <1990Oct29.235921.23294@math.lsa.umich.edu> <4dba8b38.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Reply-To: rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 22

In article <4dba8b38.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (I) wrote:
>In article <1990Oct29.235921.23294@math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
>>Of course, if you're only writing for 680x0 architectures, this won't ever
>>be a problem (?) since data is aligned on word boundaries (2 bytes, 16 bits)
>>and not longword boundaries (4 bytes, 32 bits). [but watch out for those
>>single-byte declarations!  }-)  ]
>
>Well, not quite.  I can't speak for other vendors, but Apollo C on our 68k
>workstations can also insert padding between structure members to long-align
>them.  (A 32-bit fetch of a long-aligned object will run slightly faster
>than a fetch of an odd-word-aligned object.)  On a DN4500, for example, your
>example struct would also be 32 bytes big.

That'll teach me to post before the morning's caffeine takes effect.  Forget
what I said about Apollo C (it really will only word-align Howard's struct
members).  However, I don't see any reason why a compiler *mustn't* long-
align struct members, can you?  Aside from that it wastes space; I'm mean,
in an idealogical sense.  It sounds like something you shouldn't depend upon.
--
"I feel lightheaded, Sam.  I think my      | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com
 brain is out of air.  But it's kind of    | The Apollo Systems Division of
 a neat feeling..." -- Freelance Police    |       Hewlett-Packard