|Re: alignment of data-types firstname.lastname@example.org (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-06)|
|Re: alignment of data-types email@example.com (2003-02-11)|
|Re: alignment of data-types firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark McIntyre) (2003-02-11)|
|Re: alignment of data-types email@example.com (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-12)|
|From:||"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||12 Feb 2003 13:39:28 -0500|
|References:||<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 03-02-033 03-02-054|
|Posted-Date:||12 Feb 2003 13:39:27 EST|
"Mark McIntyre" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> On 6 Feb 2003 00:16:31 -0500, in comp.lang.c , "Glen Herrmannsfeldt"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >"Mark McIntyre" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> >> You have little or no chance of being better at it than the guys who
> >> wrote it, at least not till you're a guru programmer, by which stage
> >> you won't need to ask us for advice....
> >Should, but not always true.
> >It is common for x86 compilers to allocate double variables on 4 byte
> >boundaries. This was optimal on the 386 and 486, but not on pentium
> >and later processors. The difference can be large.
> Indeed. But by the time hte OP truly understands why that is so, he
> for sure won't need to ask questions in CLC. Hence the 2nd part of my
True, but even worse is doing profiling and having the alignment change
The one I was originally writing about is the pointer returned by malloc().
Structure alignment is a different question. malloc() alignment could
easily change with only a small change in a program, or even no change at
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.