4

The scope is in x86
For example, we have a struct like this: 

struct X{
   int    a;   
   char   b; 
               // compiler will pad 3 bytes here
   double c;
};
X x;

I think the alignment of x should be the largest member in it, in this case is double, which is 8 bytes,
so &x should be a multiple of 8, am I right?

However, after some tests, my compiler(msvc 2013) says &x can also be a multiple of 4 but not 8.

Isn't it meaning &x.c will also be a multiple of 4?

Where do I misunderstand?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    It's compiler-dependent. See for example stackoverflow.com/questions/5397447/struct-padding-in-c Commented Mar 19, 2014 at 20:03
  • I'd be very interested to see a number other than four that's a multiple of four, but not eight. Joking aside, while you can't rely on much in terms of cross-platform compatibility, your system very probably does specify this sort of thing or adhere to a specification. The System V specification for x86, for example, specifies double to be aligned to four bytes, not eight. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 1:05

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

The C and C++ standards does not give any advice [or at least no firm rules] on what alignment should be. It is up to each compiler (and of course, what target the compiler is for) to determine a good policy. It's often preferred if this policy works for the target... ;)

Since the FPU [including SSE in scalar mode] of x86 can read "double" from any byte-address and I believe there is no direct benefit in adding more than 3 bytes between the b and c elements, nor to align the whole struct to anything more than 4 bytes. Doing more would waste memory.

In some other architecture, it may well be a great benefit (or a requirement for the target to operate correctly), and it would thus align the whole struct to 8 bytes.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

2

Structure alignment in VC is a compiler option /Zp determines the byte boundaries on which your structures will be packed. This is normally an advanced option and not used except in unusual use cases (such as doing a memcpy of block data for transfer over the network). Check the property pages of the project in order to see what the alignment is.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xh3e3fd0.aspx

Improve this answer

Comments

1

Generally speaking you can't say that much about the size, the alignment or how your struct is packed, and by "generally" I mean according to the C++ standard of your choice.

The problems are:

  • int, char and double have no defined size according to the standard, the standard simply sets some minimum requirements, what you are going to get depends on the implementation
  • alignment depends not only on the compiler implementation but sometimes even on the set of flags that you are passing and what hardware you are targeting, packing is extremely important for the CPU cache and some instructions may even need different padding, this also depends on what you are putting in the struct and how you are writing it.

As a consequence for this kind of operations you have to literally stick with the documentation of the compiler of your choice and dive into the features that it provides you, for example here you can find an overview on how to pack data in gcc vs msvc .

Improve this answer

5 Comments

No what. It is by definition 1. Please look at the link I have provided under notes.
@JanHerrmann from the link that you are posting: "Depending on the computer architecture, a byte may consist of 8 or more bits", again, now tell us how big are those 3 types according to the C++ standard. And not in terms of bytes, in terms of bits and alignment, if you can do that you win.
according to the link I provided sizeof is defined in the standard for char, signed char and unsigned char to return 1. And alignof (en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/alignof) returns the smallest allignment. The size of int and double are implementation defined but not the size of char. So your first point is not correct.
@JanHerrmann re-read again, you are wrong, the sizeof operator returns bytes, even if you know that a thing is 1 byte but you can't define how much is a byte, you know nothing about the size of the type, it's as simple as that.
let us continue this discussion in chat

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.