On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 12:08 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:53:47PM +0200, Mark Phalan wrote:
> > Are the padding rules supposed to be consistent between the compiler and
> > dtrace on x64?
> >
> >
> > # cat /tmp/s.d
> > ...
> >
> > # cat /tmp/s.d
> > ...
>
> Did you mean to catn /tmp/x.c and /tmp/s.d?
Sorry...
$ cat /tmp/x.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <stddef.h>
typedef struct _my_data {
uint32_t a;
uint32_t b;
uint64_t c;
} my_data;
typedef struct _more_data {
uint32_t x;
my_data y;
} more_data;
int main() {
printf("my_data: %d\n", sizeof(my_data));
printf("more_data: %d\n", sizeof(more_data));
printf("offset: %d\n", offsetof(more_data, y));
}
>
> > $ cc -m64 /tmp/x.c -o /tmp/x
>
> Dunno what x.c contains... I'm assuming something very similar to what
> s.d contains.
Yup, pretty much identical. See above.
-M
_______________________________________________
dtrace-discuss mailing list
dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
