"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message
news:hbonbp$to...@digitalmars.com...
> "AJ" <a...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:hboaeu$5s...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> "BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message
>> news:a6268ffbb0a8cc20817fe1f...@news.digitalmars.com...
>>> Hello aJ,
>>>
>>>> I would think so. Anyway, what I find compelling about guaranteed
>>>> widths is the potential to eliminate alignment and padding issues
>>>> (that is, be able to control it with confidence across platforms as
>>>> one already can on a single platform via compiler pragmas or cmdline
>>>> switches).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! I thought you were taking issue with something. D has that and gets
>>> most of the porting stuff to work.
>>>
>>
>> It does? Get this to work on "all" platforms:
>>
>> struct ABC
>> {
>> byte a;
>> int b; // may be improperly aligned on some platforms
>> int64 c; // same issue
>> };
>>
>>
>
> // Guarantee packed on all platforms
> align() struct ABC
> {
> byte a;
> int b; // may be improperly aligned on some platforms
> int64 c; // same issue
> };
Well I can do the same thing with pragma or compiler switch in C++. It
doesn't mean that thing will work if 32-bit ints have to be aligned on
32-bit boundaries. While nice to have one syntax to do that, it doesn't fix
the "problem" (which I haven't expressed correctly probably). What good is a
packed structure that has misaligned data members for the platform?
>
> // Guarantee 64-bit alignment on a, b, and c on all platforms
> align(8) struct ABC
> {
> byte a;
> int b; // may be improperly aligned on some platforms
> int64 c; // same issue
> };
>
>
