Barry Schwarz wrote:
) On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC), Willem
)
)>Barry Schwarz wrote:
)>) On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT), "christian.bau"
)>)
)>)>
)>)>> On my DS-6000, with the default compiler flags, I got 37, 16, 42, and 5,
)>)>> respectively. ?But, with a different set of flags, I can produce 1, 2, 3,
)>)>> and 4, respectively.
)>)>
)>)>Your compiler with default compiler flags is not a conforming C
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
)>)>implementation. Answer four must be at least 40.
)>)
)>) What pray tell are you smoking? There is no requirement for any of
)>) the members of the struct in question to have a size greater than 1.
)>) With only four members in the struct, four is a perfectly good size.
)>
)>Struct 4 contains struct 1. Struct 1 is of size 37. 37+3=40.
)>I think that's what he was getting at.
)
) Under the specified conditions ("with a different set of flags"),
) struct 1 has a size of 1 as indicated four words after the text I just
) quoted.
The specified conditions, which I underlined for your convenience,
are "with default compiler flags".
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
