Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!polyslo!cquenel
From: cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (44 more school days)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Sorting struct members for alignment
Message-ID: <9999@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 6 Apr 89 07:13:11 GMT
References: <583@geovision.UUCP> <11541@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (44 more school days)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Blue Blaze Irregulars
Lines: 32

From article <583@geovision.UUCP>, by gd@geovision.uucp (Gord Deinstadt):
> structure member reordering should be the default.

In 9296 jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) sez:
>I disagree.  One of the main reasons I use structures is to describe tables
>that will be used to share data between machines and/or between languages.

	This doesn't seem to be a reason for not making 
	re-arrangement the default, just for allowing it be turned off.

	If I were writing a structure that NEEDED to be aligned
	exactly as I had specifed, I would fell MUCH safer if I
	could say "explicit" in front of it, and KNOW that either
	the compiler would code it as it stands, or give me
	a compile time error.

	This is how I'd like to see it.

	But, unfortunately, there was no precedent for this, and
	not enough people think we need it, so I'll have to wait.
	Or use a different language.

	Please note the followups have been directed to comp.lang.c

	--chris

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology.
-- 
@---@  ------------------------------------------------------------------  @---@
\. ./  | Chris Quenelle (The First Lab Rat) cquenel@polyslo.calpoly.edu |  \. ./
 \ /   |                + good; ++ good;     -- Annie Lennox            |   \ / 
==o==  ------------------------------------------------------------------  ==o==