Re: Structure size directives
- From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:42:01 -0500
those who know me have no need of my name wrote:
Unaligned accesses to objects, should be banned. It has nothing
to do with portable C code, it might trigger a core dump on
non-x86 CPU.
even on x86 systems with the right option enabled.
but i think jacob's point is that people want these "dense"
struct's and that there should be a way to get the compiler to
emit the code necessary to marshall the data. some systems
would turn off or on some option while the program is running,
other systems would need the type of handling often seen in c
code for marshalling "plain" structs into and out of arrays of
unsigned char, etc...
This is opinion, but I think he, and they, are mistaken. Code has
quite different objectives today than it used to. There was a time
when memory was extremely precious, and we took almost all options
to economize it. Today, memory (and disk storage) is cheap, and we
use it freely. However nothing has reduced the need for clear and
understandable code.
BTW, please do not strip attributions for material you quote.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Structure size directives
- From: those who know me have no need of my name
- Re: Structure size directives
- References:
- Structure size directives
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Structure size directives
- From: Tor Rustad
- Re: Structure size directives
- From: those who know me have no need of my name
- Structure size directives
- Prev by Date: Re: gethostbyname() ---- Delete Resulting Pointer?
- Next by Date: Re: Newbie needing some help with segmentation fault
- Previous by thread: Re: Structure size directives
- Next by thread: Re: Structure size directives
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
