Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!atbowler
From: atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG])
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Un-alignment in structures
Message-ID: <12147@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 21:45:24 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.12147
Posted: Sun Mar 24 21:45:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:55:53 EST
References: <9239@brl-tgr.ARPA> <9251@brl-tgr.ARPA> <248@rtech.ARPA>
Reply-To: atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 13
Summary: 

In article <248@rtech.ARPA> jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) writes:
>  I agree that the compiler shouldn't pad for you,
>because this takes away the choice.

Actually I really want the compiler to pad for me, the optimal
alignment varies from machine to machine, and I expect the compiler
to handle this detail for me by chosing the alignment that suits the
machine.  Doubles on some machines need 8 byte alignment, on others 2 byte.
The only way to be sure that a program will port with reasonable
effieciency is to assume that the compiler will know such things
and chose the correct alignments.  If the compiler is to be forbidden
the freedom to chose the natural alignments that will dramatically
increased the amount of work I have to do to port a program.