On 29/03/2015 20:43, Jędrzej Dudkiewicz wrote: > I think that sizeof(struct bar2) equal 192 is pretty obvious. Size of > struct foo2 is 128 bytes and after that comes 4/8 bytes of int. This (Out of curiosity, how many gcc targets have a 64-bit int? I suspect the answer is "zero or fewer".) > means that size of struct foo2 is 132/136, but requested alignment is > 64 bytes, so alignment of bar2 must be also 64 bytes. This means that > if array of bar2 structures is created, each of them must start at 64 > byte boundary. 128 is out of question, but 192 is fine, since it's > nearest value divisible by 64. So 192 bytes it is. > > Correct me if I'm wrong. It is obvious to you that the layout for bar2 is: s(80) + pad(48) + int(4) + pad(60) It seems to me that there is another possible layout for bar2: s(80) + int(4) + pad(44) = 128 bytes The problem then would be that struct foo2 pointers might either point to a "stand-alone" foo2 -- s(80) + pad(48) -- or to a bar2 "inner struct" (one with the int before the padding). If gcc generates code that leaves the padding untouched, then the same code works with both variants, and my suggestion would be valid. Or did I get something wrong? Regards.
