From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,976a050e0f89277c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: Urgent question: malloc and ada... Date: 1998/05/03 Message-ID: <6ihhko$i4n$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 349803710 References: <6ifdou$io3$1@news.hal-pc.org> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 894192088 18583 (None) 128.122.140.194 Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6ifdou$io3$1@news.hal-pc.org> Jonathan Guthrie writes: >Actually, I was commenting more on the alignment of structs (which, as >far as I know, can vary even on those systems with a single calling >convention) than the calling convention. Calling conventions are usually >reasonably well standardized, the alignment of structs is not. Yet your >post implied that both are covered (as they would have to be) by the >requirements. On most modern systems, details of how structures are supposed to be aligned are discussed in the same document that discusses the calling sequence. On older systems, there is often *no* documentation on this and so the appropriate thing to do is to follow whatever the specific compiler being interfaced with does, just like you would do with calling conventions. I see no difference between the two issues.