«

struct pad1 {
char c1;
};

struct pad2 {
char c1;
int x;
};


struct pad3 {
char c1;
char c2;
int x;
};


struct pad4 {
char c1;
char c2;
int x;
struct pad1 {
char c1;
};
};

What will be the sizeof for the structs above? (for 32-bit and 64-bit
machines).

On Jul 23, 9:02*am, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:

<snip>

> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
> respectively. *But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
> and 4, respectively.

You need to upgrade your hardware. I believe the latest version is
9000.

> You can find out what your particular implementation, with a particular set
> of compiler flags, produces, by simply printf'ing the sizeof the structs.
>
> --
> Kenneth Brody

On 23/07/10 13:31, Tech Id wrote:

> What will be the sizeof for the structs above? (for 32-bit and 64-bit
> machines).

depends on the compiler, and whether, if the compiler supports it, the
struct is packed.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

On 7/23/2010 8:31 AM, Tech Id wrote:
> struct pad1 {
> char c1;
> };
>
> struct pad2 {
> char c1;
> int x;
> };
>
>
> struct pad3 {
> char c1;
> char c2;
> int x;
> };
>
>
> struct pad4 {
> char c1;
> char c2;
> int x;
> struct pad1 {
> char c1;
> };
> };
>
> What will be the sizeof for the structs above? (for 32-bit and 64-bit
> machines).

sizeof(struct pad1), sizeof(struct pad2), sizeof(struct pad3),
and nothing (doesn't compile), respectively. We can also infer that

sizeof(struct pad1) >= 1
sizeof(struct pad2) >= 2
sizeof(struct pad3) >= 3

.... but that's all the C language itself can give us.

--
Eric Sosman
lid

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
<> wrote:

>On Jul 23, 2:02*pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
>> respectively. *But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
>> and 4, respectively.
>
>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.

What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.

--
Remove del for email

Barry Schwarz wrote:
) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
)<> wrote:
)
)>On Jul 23, 2:02?pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
)>
)>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
)>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
)>> and 4, respectively.
)>
)>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
)>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
)
) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.

Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
I think that's what he was getting at.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC), Willem
<> wrote:

>Barry Schwarz wrote:
>) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
>)<> wrote:
>)
>)>On Jul 23, 2:02?pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>)>
>)>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
>)>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
>)>> and 4, respectively.
>)>
>)>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
>)>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
>)
>) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
>) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
>) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.
>
>Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
>I think that's what he was getting at.

Under the specified conditions ("with a different set of flags"),
struct 1 has a size of 1 as indicated four words after the text I just
quoted.

--
Remove del for email

On 26 Jul 2010 08:37, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> On 7/25/2010 10:29 PM, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC), Willem
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Barry Schwarz wrote:
>>> ) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
>>> )<> wrote:
>>> )
>>> )>On Jul 23, 2:02?pm, Kenneth Brody<kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> )>
>>> )>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16,
>>> 42, and 5,
>>> )>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce
>>> 1, 2, 3,
>>> )>> and 4, respectively.
>>> )>
>>> )>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
>>> )>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
>>> )
>>> ) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
>>> ) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
>>> ) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.
>>>
>>> Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
>>> I think that's what he was getting at.
>>
>> Under the specified conditions ("with a different set of flags"),
>> struct 1 has a size of 1 as indicated four words after the text I just
>> quoted.
>
> But, he was talking about "with default compiler flags", where the
> numbers are 37 and 5, respectively.
>
> I guess I'll have to submit a bug report, though I understand the
> DS-6000 is no longer supported.
>
>> struct pad1 {
>> char c1;
>> };
> [...]
>> struct pad4 {
>> char c1;
>> char c2;
>> int x;
>> struct pad1 {
>> char c1;
>> };
>> };
>
>
> Or, can the struct within pad4 be distinct from the "other" struct pad1,
> and therefore have different padding?

I thought all structs with the same members must have the same size and
padding (for a given implementation, of course). If so, this is
definitely a bug in the DS6k compiler.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Barry Schwarz wrote:
) On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC), Willem
)<> wrote:
)
)>Barry Schwarz wrote:
)>) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
)>)<> wrote:
)>)
)>)>On Jul 23, 2:02?pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
)>)>
)>)>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
)>)>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
)>)>> and 4, respectively.
)>)>
)>)>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
)>)>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
)>)
)>) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
)>) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
)>) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.
)>
)>Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
)>I think that's what he was getting at.
)
) Under the specified conditions ("with a different set of flags"),
) struct 1 has a size of 1 as indicated four words after the text I just
) quoted.

The specified conditions, which I underlined for your convenience,
are "with default compiler flags".


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Kenneth Brody <> writes:

> On 7/25/2010 10:29 PM, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC), Willem
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Barry Schwarz wrote:
>>> ) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
>>> )<> wrote:
>>> )
>>> )>On Jul 23, 2:02?pm, Kenneth Brody<kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> )>
>>> )>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
>>> )>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
>>> )>> and 4, respectively.
>>> )>
>>> )>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
>>> )>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
>>> )
>>> ) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
>>> ) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
>>> ) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.
>>>
>>> Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
>>> I think that's what he was getting at.
>>
>> Under the specified conditions ("with a different set of flags"),
>> struct 1 has a size of 1 as indicated four words after the text I just
>> quoted.
>
> But, he was talking about "with default compiler flags", where the
> numbers are 37 and 5, respectively.
>
> I guess I'll have to submit a bug report, though I understand the
> DS-6000 is no longer supported.
>
>> struct pad1 {
>> char c1;
>> };
> [...]
>> struct pad4 {
>> char c1;
>> char c2;
>> int x;
>> struct pad1 {
>> char c1;
>> };
>> };
>
>
> Or, can the struct within pad4 be distinct from the "other" struct
> pad1, and therefore have different padding?

As far as I know there is no explicit requirement that they be
the same. Type compatibility rules effectively rule out the
possibility that they could be different (since both must be
compatible with a 'struct pad1' type declared in another
translation unit), so at the very least it would be extremely
surprising to see an actual implementation where they were
different. It seems worth a bug report, even if through some
twisted logic the Standard allows (and I'm not sure it does)
the possibility that different amounts of padding is conforming.