|Permuting fields of records email@example.com (1993-06-04)|
|C structure padding firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-06-26)|
|Re: C structure padding email@example.com (1993-06-27)|
|Re: C structure padding firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Lord) (1993-06-27)|
|Re: C structure padding email@example.com (1993-06-27)|
|Re: C structure padding firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-06-28)|
|Re: C structure padding email@example.com (1993-06-28)|
|Re: C structure padding firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-06-29)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dale R. Worley)|
|Organization:||MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Jun 1993 16:03:19 GMT|
I will point out that all the discussions of "why structs have to always
have padding in them" refer to the use of memcpy, bcopy, or some such
routine -- "Otherwise bcopy of the structure would affect something else."
But is there a clear statement that if you bcopy over a struct, with a
length of sizeof(the struct), that you won't affect some other object?
Obviously, you don't want it to, but does the Standard actually *say* that
Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT firstname.lastname@example.org
[It says so indirectly -- routines like memcpy() take a length argument which
is a size_t, and the only portable way to get a size-t is with sizeof. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.