Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!mit-athena!jc
From: jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Un-alignment in structures
Message-ID: <135@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 09:43:21 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.135
Posted: Fri Mar 29 09:43:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 23:47:40 EST
References: <230@tellab2.UUCP>
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 73

> In article <120@mit-athena.UUCP> jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
> >If the data is unaligned (...) someone has to write the inefficient code to
> >extract the data.  It is either me or the compiler.  This is not a difficult
> >job for a compiler to do....                       Handling
> >misaligned data is an especially dreary piece of drudge work that is both 
> >hard for me and easy for the machine.
> 
> OK, how does the compiler know at compile time whether a pointer will be
> pointing to an aligned structure or not?  It would have to assume that is
> never is aligned, which would produce needlessly innefficient code 95% of
> the time.  

Good point, but not really relevant.  You see, current C compilers have 
this problem right now.  Try an experiment like:

  #include <stdio.h>
  int a[4] = {1,2,3,4};
  int i, *p;
  main() {
    for (i=0; i<9; i++) {	/* First 9 "integers" */
      p = (int*)((int)a + i);	/* Subvert C's casts */
      printf("%04x: %4x=%d\n",p,*p,*p);
    }
    return 0;
  }
On our VAX (4.2BSD), the result is:
  1030:    1=1
  1031: 2000000=33554432
  1032: 20000=131072
  1033:  200=512
  1034:    2=2
  1035: 3000000=50331648
  1036: 30000=196608
  1037:  300=768
  1038:    3=3

Even on machines that "can't do" unaligned integers, this program
will probably run without "error" and will give some garbage for
output.  The point is that C programs can stuff any value whatsoever 
into pointers.  After all, what's to stop them?  Unless you violate
hardware bounds, you will usually get something.  At worst, the
low-order bits will be ignored, and you'll get one of the "adjacent"
aligned words.  

So the argument that not doing alignment would require that the
compiler handle funny pointers is a red herring.  It could do what
current compilers do--assume that all pointers are valid and generate
code to blindly do the operations.

Anyhow, you changed the subject.  It wasn't about valid/invalid
pointers.  It was about alignment of fields within structures.

Personally, I'd vote for adding Pascal's "packed" attribute to
C structures.  Much as I don't love Pascal, I gotta admit that
this time they did something right.  Let's face it, there are
reasons for wanting things aligned, and reasons for wanting them
unaligned.  It's yet another space/time tradeoff.  Packed structures
waste cpu time to save memory; aligned structures waste memory
to save cpu time.  Both are desirable.  It's unfortunate that
the guys at Bell didn't get around to adding this goodie to C 
before the language became entrenched.

My arguments against automatic alignment come from the fact that
I have been burned by it over and over, while I am not aware of
any case where it has helped me.  (But then, you notice the bad
times more than the good.)  After all, what does it gain a man
to save a millisecond of his computer's time if he loses an hour
of his own time thereby?
-- 

			John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena]

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate.