Date: 05 Aug 2002 11:28:47 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GCC versions!!! Message-ID: <44fzxttjdc.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20020805080917.GB15513@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> References: <3D386AED1B47D411A94300508B11F18704AD6999@fmsmsx116.fm.intel.com> <20020805080917.GB15513@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes: > I doubt there's a difference at this level between gcc on Linux or > FreeBSD: this sort of alignment/endianness issue is mostly a function > of the CPU the code is running on. At a guess, your second result was > obtained on a Sparc or PowerPC[*] or similar CPU, which is the > other-endian from an x86 class CPU: I never can rememder which one is > 'big-endian' and which one is 'little-endian' though. X86 are little-endian; among other processors, big-endian is somewhat more common. Note that the compiler is perfectly within its rights to add padding at any point in the structure, so this code invokes implementation-defined behaviour in any case. [You ignore the compiler warning messages "assignment from incompatible pointer type" at your peril.] Be well. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44fzxttjdc.fsf>