>>>>> "E" == E Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
E> Paul Koning wrote: According to the docs here: E> <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.3/gcc/Type-Attributes.html#Type-Attributes> >> E> what about doing something like this?: >> E> typedef int packed_int __attribute__ ((aligned (1))); >> E> packed_int *ppi; >> That would make sense, but it has never worked for me. It seems >> that attributes don't apply to type names, only to variables and >> members. >> >> >> E> What?! That whole section in the docs talks about attributes on E> types. If it doesn't work as described, then the docs need some E> serious rework. I'd rather the compiler got the work than the docs. Maybe it's better in newer versions; I don't have anything newer than 3.4.1 built right now. Test program: typedef int pi __attribute__((packed)); void set(void *p, int v) { pi *ppi; ppi = (pi *) p; *ppi = v; } On 3.3.3, this compiles without any warnings (in spite of -Wall) but the store is an aligned store (MIPS "sw" instruction). With 3.4.1, I get this: test.c:1: warning: `packed' attribute ignored Sigh. And yes, I agree with Dave that having attributes work syntactically the same as CV-modifiers -- so they can be directly applied to the pointed-to type in pointer declarations -- would be a Good Thing. paul
