On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >>The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > > > >>pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no > > > >>union or compiler bug involved. > > > > > > > >But "PMC-sized" is defined in terms of the C sizeof operator, right? > > > > > > Yes. And the size can be 20 or better it is with --optimize on an 32-bit > > > system, which places every second PMC->num_val on an "odd" boundary. > > > > If architecture X requires N-byte alignment for type T; and any > > compiler for architecture X defines any structure containing a member > > of type T as having a total structure size that is not a multiple of > > N, then that compiler really is buggy. It's an inevitable consequence > > of how array allocation and pointer arithmetic are defined. > > Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports > that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC.
Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever misalign a double. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
