http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev 2012-06-25
10:29:40 UTC ---
I think gcc C could support it too by
some "pack_harder" attribute (and then not
allow pointers to such structs), but I've got
the point. :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev 2012-06-24
18:20:00 UTC ---
Is this mandated in some spec or doc?
Any way to defeat that? :)
Btw, why can't the "attribute packed" be
allowed to pack on a bit boundary too?
Sounds like a useless limitation, no?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-24
18:12:39 UTC ---
Because each inner struct has to be at a byte boundary.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev 2012-06-24
18:09:18 UTC ---
Even if "attribute packed" have nothing to do with this,
then why doesn't it pack regardless?
Eg,
struct {
char a:1;
char b:1;
char c:1;
}
would be packed, no matter what.
Why does the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-24
17:59:08 UTC ---
I think having a size of 4 is correct. Packed is on a byte boundary and not a
bit boundary.
