AJ wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"AJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"BCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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?
struct ABC {
version (RequireAlign4) align(4)
byte a;
int b;
int64 c;
}
