Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stefan.teleman@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5054EBD1.2010802@hates.ms>
References: <5054B4B1.8040502@hates.ms>
	<CALdE9OCKkiTRCjWZsTdGWFyFyeRAym5gXvwwLt4MY5_O128vGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5054EBD1.2010802@hates.ms>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:19:12 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALdE9OCSfwMJ13FH0LKLYr6d+2QmsX0FzQCaRHVzZOvGp11m+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
From: Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@gmail.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:

> Yes, but it restores the default packing, not an arbitrary one, potentially
> set by the user prior to including our headers. Say, the user sets 2, the
> default is 4 and we set 8. When we set it to default it goes back to 4,
> instead of the expected 2. Did I get this right?

This is true, but leaving some arbirary pragma pack(N) (for N != 0) in
effect for the duration of a program, and expecting it to work sounds
like a very defective programming approach to me. It will certainly
not work on SPARC at all. if the program needs to pack something in a
certain specific way, it need to do so for that specific something
only. Otherwise the side-effects of globally setting a non-default
packing will destroy the program anyway.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com