• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Alignment in structs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Alignment in structs


  • Subject: Re: Alignment in structs
  • From: Steve Christensen <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:57:33 -0700

On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Rush Manbert wrote:

Steve Christensen wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Rush Manbert wrote:
Laurence Harris wrote:

Okay, this is weird. I took out the __attribute__((__packed__)) when I got the error. Then I put it back and was going to use your suggestion, but I don't get the error now. I wonder if there was some kind of compiler error the first time.

From what I've read, it appears that gcc would not complain if the calling argument were a const reference. It seems that read only access of packed data members is fine, but write access through a reference is not. If the calling argument is a pointer to UInt32, that will be okay with the compiler too. I don't really understand why references are restricted in this way, but I assume there's a good (if obscure) reason.
Unaligned accesses can cause a crash on some processors so gcc may just be generalizing for that case. Thus, calling
void foo(UInt32 x);
would be fine for all cases since the compiler could generate the appropriate instructions to gather up all the pieces for x and pass a UInt32 value into foo. Calling
void foo(UInt32& x);
would be problematic because foo doesn't know that x is potentially misaligned.

I'm not looking to start a debate, but I don't believe that explains why calling
void foo (UInt32 *p);
doesn't generate a warning. The hardware memory access is the same in either case.

Did I miss that bit. Yep, I would assume that a UInt32& and a UInt32* would be treated the same.


I'm still curious about Larry's real use case...

I can't speak to Larry's case, but just look at all the Carbon headers. You see


#pragma options align=mac68k

or

#pragma pack(2)

all over the place. They're just making sure that various compilers (and per-architecture builds) pack structures the "same way it's always been done."

steve

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >Alignment in structs (From: Laurence Harris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Rush Manbert <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Laurence Harris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Steve Checkoway <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Laurence Harris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Rush Manbert <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Steve Christensen <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Alignment in structs (From: Rush Manbert <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: re: Debugger won't handle release build
  • Next by Date: Passing '-t' to the linker
  • Previous by thread: Re: Alignment in structs
  • Next by thread: Re: Alignment in structs
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread