[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: defined(IRIX)
From: |
Thomas Dickey |
Subject: |
Re: defined(IRIX) |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:26:34 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.27i |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 01:09:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Thomas Dickey writes:
>
> > There is form, but no content. This can be done using AC_TRY_RUN (or other
> > runtime check), is otherwise no better than a random guess. Alignment
> > problems
> > don't show up in compiling, but at runtime.
>
> I'm afraid they do. The check answers the question "If I put this type
> into a struct, where will the compiler align it?", which is ultimately
> what our code is interested in, and it also happens to correspond to GCC's
> __alignof__ operator, hence the name.
>
> If you want to answer a question of the form "If I put this type at this
> address, will my program crash?", you can write a different test, but it
> would be a lot more cumbersome and won't get you substantially better
> results.
that's assuming the compiler is correct (which, in the case of gcc, has
not always been true). But your perspective on the matter probably reflects
the platforms where you've run gcc...
--
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
- defined(IRIX), Bill Moseley, 2002/09/26
- Re: defined(IRIX), Philip Willoughby, 2002/09/26
- Re: defined(IRIX), Bill Moseley, 2002/09/26
- Re: defined(IRIX), Paul Eggert, 2002/09/26
- Re: defined(IRIX), Peter Eisentraut, 2002/09/26
- Re: defined(IRIX), Akim Demaille, 2002/09/27
- Re: defined(IRIX), Thomas Dickey, 2002/09/27
- Re: defined(IRIX), Philip Willoughby, 2002/09/27
- Re: defined(IRIX), Bill Moseley, 2002/09/27
- Re: defined(IRIX), Peter Eisentraut, 2002/09/28
- Re: defined(IRIX),
Thomas Dickey <=
- Re: defined(IRIX), Peter Eisentraut, 2002/09/29