Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And just in case you are wondering, I ran all those previous tests again
> >> with -std=c99 with exactly the same results.
> >
> >Thank you for the test!
> >
> >So GCC is in clear violation with the C-99 standard.
>
> Which part of the C-99 standard, exactly? Section 6.7.2.1, paragraph
> #12,#14,#15 (see draft N869 from
> http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/n869_txt.bz2) says the
> following:
>
> ---------------------------------------
...
> [#15] As a special case, the last element of a structure
> with more than one named member may have an incomplete array
> type. This is called a flexible array member, and the size
> of the structure shall be equal to the offset of the last
> element of an otherwise identical structure that replaces
> the flexible array member with an array of unspecified
> ---------------------------------------
> i.e. there may be no padding before the first member of a structure,
> but there may be elsewhere within the structure including right at the
> end. As a special case, if you specify the last member of your
> structure as a "flexible array member" then there will be no padding
> _at the end of the structure_. It does not affect padding _within_ the
> structure.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't see anything here to support your assertion that
> gcc is behaving incorrectly.
Could you please run a final test?
I would like to see the offset of "dummy" in the structure (e.g. via
the offsetof() macro from <stddef.h>).
I am sure that GCC will _not_ introduce padding _before_ "dummy" and
the C-99 stanad requires that sizeof (struct test) == offsetof(struct test,
dummy);
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
