jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) (03/29/89)
I don't think compilers should do this optomization- It's just another restriction which complicates things when you try to mix C with assembly language. Besides, it's simple enough for the programmer to do it himself. What might be usefull, however, is a compiler switch which when activated makes the compiler give a warning message whenever padding is inserted within a structure. On another note, how much of the below is just C junk? That is, can we live without this stuff? How many people use "enum"erations? I started out programming in assembly language and then went directly to C (I.E. without stopping at pascal in between). So I'm very used to using "defines" ("equates") for this type of thing. Being as used to numberic data as I am, I'm not really sure if I'd like this type of type checking. (I'm not opposed to "unit" type checking however) How many people use C's bit-field operations? Is there some better syntax to do what "union"s are typically used for? You can always just make a different structure definition for each sub-class of the structure, but then you get a bit hairy with the type casts.