Peter Fales wrote: > Abel, > > Thanks for the suggesting those changes. When I said I didn't see > any easy way to fix it, I had your method in mind as the "hard" way. > It sure is a lot easier to let the compiler take care of the little > details like that. But I guess that's the price you have to > pay for portability. I went ahead and tested your changes, and since > the structures are referenced too many times, it wasn't as bad as I > thought. Other than changing "4+" to "2+" in your defines, your > code worked pretty much out of the box.
So, not only a C compiler but also my brain (or imagination) can produce padding bytes ;) Abel
