Data alignment in structure in x86-64 [closed]









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












 struct P1 short i; int c; int *j; short *d; ;
struct P4 char w[16]; char *c[2]; ;
struct P5 struct P4 a[2]; struct P1 t; ;


I have a couple of question about padding. I have learned that padding is applied by default.



So I think offset of struct P1 should be



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 8 16 24 8


and for struct P5



a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 64 96 8


since total size of P4 is 32byte.
But the textbook solution is different. I think I am correct.



Solution suggests



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 6 14 16 8


a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 24 40 8









share|improve this question















closed as too broad by Lundin, greg-449, TDG, Nicolas Filotto, Matthieu Brucher Nov 9 at 22:23


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
    – Shawn
    Nov 9 at 3:03







  • 1




    The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:05










  • It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:25










  • Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
    – Lundin
    Nov 9 at 14:43














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












 struct P1 short i; int c; int *j; short *d; ;
struct P4 char w[16]; char *c[2]; ;
struct P5 struct P4 a[2]; struct P1 t; ;


I have a couple of question about padding. I have learned that padding is applied by default.



So I think offset of struct P1 should be



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 8 16 24 8


and for struct P5



a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 64 96 8


since total size of P4 is 32byte.
But the textbook solution is different. I think I am correct.



Solution suggests



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 6 14 16 8


a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 24 40 8









share|improve this question















closed as too broad by Lundin, greg-449, TDG, Nicolas Filotto, Matthieu Brucher Nov 9 at 22:23


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
    – Shawn
    Nov 9 at 3:03







  • 1




    The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:05










  • It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:25










  • Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
    – Lundin
    Nov 9 at 14:43












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











 struct P1 short i; int c; int *j; short *d; ;
struct P4 char w[16]; char *c[2]; ;
struct P5 struct P4 a[2]; struct P1 t; ;


I have a couple of question about padding. I have learned that padding is applied by default.



So I think offset of struct P1 should be



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 8 16 24 8


and for struct P5



a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 64 96 8


since total size of P4 is 32byte.
But the textbook solution is different. I think I am correct.



Solution suggests



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 6 14 16 8


a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 24 40 8









share|improve this question















 struct P1 short i; int c; int *j; short *d; ;
struct P4 char w[16]; char *c[2]; ;
struct P5 struct P4 a[2]; struct P1 t; ;


I have a couple of question about padding. I have learned that padding is applied by default.



So I think offset of struct P1 should be



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 8 16 24 8


and for struct P5



a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 64 96 8


since total size of P4 is 32byte.
But the textbook solution is different. I think I am correct.



Solution suggests



i c j d total alignment
---------------------------------------
0 2 6 14 16 8


a t total alignment
----------------------------
0 24 40 8






c struct alignment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 9 at 4:00









Jonathan Leffler

556k886631016




556k886631016










asked Nov 9 at 2:19









cp3

14




14




closed as too broad by Lundin, greg-449, TDG, Nicolas Filotto, Matthieu Brucher Nov 9 at 22:23


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






closed as too broad by Lundin, greg-449, TDG, Nicolas Filotto, Matthieu Brucher Nov 9 at 22:23


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
    – Shawn
    Nov 9 at 3:03







  • 1




    The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:05










  • It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:25










  • Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
    – Lundin
    Nov 9 at 14:43
















  • Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
    – Shawn
    Nov 9 at 3:03







  • 1




    The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:05










  • It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
    – Jonathan Leffler
    Nov 9 at 4:25










  • Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
    – Lundin
    Nov 9 at 14:43















Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
– Shawn
Nov 9 at 3:03





Don't think, find out for sure what happens with your particular compiler and os and CPU combination using offsetof(). And realize it might be different with a different environment or different compiler flags.
– Shawn
Nov 9 at 3:03





1




1




The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
– Jonathan Leffler
Nov 9 at 4:05




The answer is implementation defined. Since you've not identified the implementation you are using, nor the implementation that the authors are using, no-one can help. You've not identified explicitly whether you're working with 32-bit or 64-bit pointers; that definitely factors into the answer. It is unlikely that c in the struct P1 is 2; it is probably 4.
– Jonathan Leffler
Nov 9 at 4:05












It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
– Jonathan Leffler
Nov 9 at 4:25




It looks like the book is assuming 32-bit pointers whereas you're assuming 64-bit pointers. Yes, the answers will be different, therefore. Both correct, but both dependent on the specific implementation. (I still think c won't be at offset 2 — it certainly isn't on a Mac running macOS 10.14.1 Mojave with GCC 8.2.0 or with Apple's Clang (Apple LLVM version 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)).
– Jonathan Leffler
Nov 9 at 4:25












Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
– Lundin
Nov 9 at 14:43




Unless you can edit the question and specify which system and compiler you have in mind, it isn't possible to answer - the question is too broad.
– Lundin
Nov 9 at 14:43












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













The exact details of structure padding are implementation defined. However, compilers do tend to place fields at an alignment suitable for their type.



Assuming 8 byte pointers (given that you're on an x86-64 machine) 4 byte int and 2 byte short, you're mostly correct. The c field in P1, being an int, will probably start at a 4 byte offset, but the rest of the fields should be at the same offsets. The size of P5 will also only need to be 88 (64 for 2 P4's and 24 for 1 P1) since only 8 byte alignment would be required as opposed to 16 byte alignment.



Given this code:



printf("sizeof p1 = %zun", sizeof(struct P1));
printf("sizeof p4 = %zun", sizeof(struct P4));
printf("sizeof p5 = %zun", sizeof(struct P5));
printf("P1 offset: %zu, %zu, %zu, %zun",
offsetof(struct P1, i), offsetof(struct P1, c),
offsetof(struct P1, j), offsetof(struct P1, d));
printf("P4 offset: %zu, %zun",
offsetof(struct P4, w), offsetof(struct P4, c));
printf("P5 offset: %zu, %zun",
offsetof(struct P5, a), offsetof(struct P5, t));


My x86-64 CentOS 7 machine with gcc 4.8.5 outputs:



sizeof p1 = 24
sizeof p4 = 32
sizeof p5 = 88
P1 offset: 0, 4, 8, 16
P4 offset: 0, 16
P5 offset: 0, 64


The book you're using seems to be using 4 byte pointers and assumes either no alignment or packed structures.



For more details, take a look at The Lost Art of Structure Padding.






share|improve this answer



























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The exact details of structure padding are implementation defined. However, compilers do tend to place fields at an alignment suitable for their type.



    Assuming 8 byte pointers (given that you're on an x86-64 machine) 4 byte int and 2 byte short, you're mostly correct. The c field in P1, being an int, will probably start at a 4 byte offset, but the rest of the fields should be at the same offsets. The size of P5 will also only need to be 88 (64 for 2 P4's and 24 for 1 P1) since only 8 byte alignment would be required as opposed to 16 byte alignment.



    Given this code:



    printf("sizeof p1 = %zun", sizeof(struct P1));
    printf("sizeof p4 = %zun", sizeof(struct P4));
    printf("sizeof p5 = %zun", sizeof(struct P5));
    printf("P1 offset: %zu, %zu, %zu, %zun",
    offsetof(struct P1, i), offsetof(struct P1, c),
    offsetof(struct P1, j), offsetof(struct P1, d));
    printf("P4 offset: %zu, %zun",
    offsetof(struct P4, w), offsetof(struct P4, c));
    printf("P5 offset: %zu, %zun",
    offsetof(struct P5, a), offsetof(struct P5, t));


    My x86-64 CentOS 7 machine with gcc 4.8.5 outputs:



    sizeof p1 = 24
    sizeof p4 = 32
    sizeof p5 = 88
    P1 offset: 0, 4, 8, 16
    P4 offset: 0, 16
    P5 offset: 0, 64


    The book you're using seems to be using 4 byte pointers and assumes either no alignment or packed structures.



    For more details, take a look at The Lost Art of Structure Padding.






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      The exact details of structure padding are implementation defined. However, compilers do tend to place fields at an alignment suitable for their type.



      Assuming 8 byte pointers (given that you're on an x86-64 machine) 4 byte int and 2 byte short, you're mostly correct. The c field in P1, being an int, will probably start at a 4 byte offset, but the rest of the fields should be at the same offsets. The size of P5 will also only need to be 88 (64 for 2 P4's and 24 for 1 P1) since only 8 byte alignment would be required as opposed to 16 byte alignment.



      Given this code:



      printf("sizeof p1 = %zun", sizeof(struct P1));
      printf("sizeof p4 = %zun", sizeof(struct P4));
      printf("sizeof p5 = %zun", sizeof(struct P5));
      printf("P1 offset: %zu, %zu, %zu, %zun",
      offsetof(struct P1, i), offsetof(struct P1, c),
      offsetof(struct P1, j), offsetof(struct P1, d));
      printf("P4 offset: %zu, %zun",
      offsetof(struct P4, w), offsetof(struct P4, c));
      printf("P5 offset: %zu, %zun",
      offsetof(struct P5, a), offsetof(struct P5, t));


      My x86-64 CentOS 7 machine with gcc 4.8.5 outputs:



      sizeof p1 = 24
      sizeof p4 = 32
      sizeof p5 = 88
      P1 offset: 0, 4, 8, 16
      P4 offset: 0, 16
      P5 offset: 0, 64


      The book you're using seems to be using 4 byte pointers and assumes either no alignment or packed structures.



      For more details, take a look at The Lost Art of Structure Padding.






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        The exact details of structure padding are implementation defined. However, compilers do tend to place fields at an alignment suitable for their type.



        Assuming 8 byte pointers (given that you're on an x86-64 machine) 4 byte int and 2 byte short, you're mostly correct. The c field in P1, being an int, will probably start at a 4 byte offset, but the rest of the fields should be at the same offsets. The size of P5 will also only need to be 88 (64 for 2 P4's and 24 for 1 P1) since only 8 byte alignment would be required as opposed to 16 byte alignment.



        Given this code:



        printf("sizeof p1 = %zun", sizeof(struct P1));
        printf("sizeof p4 = %zun", sizeof(struct P4));
        printf("sizeof p5 = %zun", sizeof(struct P5));
        printf("P1 offset: %zu, %zu, %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P1, i), offsetof(struct P1, c),
        offsetof(struct P1, j), offsetof(struct P1, d));
        printf("P4 offset: %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P4, w), offsetof(struct P4, c));
        printf("P5 offset: %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P5, a), offsetof(struct P5, t));


        My x86-64 CentOS 7 machine with gcc 4.8.5 outputs:



        sizeof p1 = 24
        sizeof p4 = 32
        sizeof p5 = 88
        P1 offset: 0, 4, 8, 16
        P4 offset: 0, 16
        P5 offset: 0, 64


        The book you're using seems to be using 4 byte pointers and assumes either no alignment or packed structures.



        For more details, take a look at The Lost Art of Structure Padding.






        share|improve this answer












        The exact details of structure padding are implementation defined. However, compilers do tend to place fields at an alignment suitable for their type.



        Assuming 8 byte pointers (given that you're on an x86-64 machine) 4 byte int and 2 byte short, you're mostly correct. The c field in P1, being an int, will probably start at a 4 byte offset, but the rest of the fields should be at the same offsets. The size of P5 will also only need to be 88 (64 for 2 P4's and 24 for 1 P1) since only 8 byte alignment would be required as opposed to 16 byte alignment.



        Given this code:



        printf("sizeof p1 = %zun", sizeof(struct P1));
        printf("sizeof p4 = %zun", sizeof(struct P4));
        printf("sizeof p5 = %zun", sizeof(struct P5));
        printf("P1 offset: %zu, %zu, %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P1, i), offsetof(struct P1, c),
        offsetof(struct P1, j), offsetof(struct P1, d));
        printf("P4 offset: %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P4, w), offsetof(struct P4, c));
        printf("P5 offset: %zu, %zun",
        offsetof(struct P5, a), offsetof(struct P5, t));


        My x86-64 CentOS 7 machine with gcc 4.8.5 outputs:



        sizeof p1 = 24
        sizeof p4 = 32
        sizeof p5 = 88
        P1 offset: 0, 4, 8, 16
        P4 offset: 0, 16
        P5 offset: 0, 64


        The book you're using seems to be using 4 byte pointers and assumes either no alignment or packed structures.



        For more details, take a look at The Lost Art of Structure Padding.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 9 at 4:30









        dbush

        90.8k12100131




        90.8k12100131













            Popular posts from this blog

            𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

            Crossroads (UK TV series)

            ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế