 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Alignement
Please support our C++ advertiser: Intel Parallel Studio Home
Thread Solved |
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 202
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 11
Posting Whiz in Training
Hi guys, i have one question regarding alignment. Assume that you have the following struct:
Also assume:
sizeof(double): 8
sizeof(int): 4
sizeof(char): 1
sizeof(short): 2
i would expect:
sizeof(align1): 8 + (char padded to->) 4 + 4 + 2 = 18 bytes
but i get:
sizeof(align1): 8 + (char padded to->) 4 + 4 + (short padded to->) 4 = 20 bytes
So what i don't understand is why the compiler pads the structure in the end? Theoretically the compiler could occupy the 2 wasted bytes
of the struct with 2 chars, why waste them on padding?
To make the question more clear if we had:
we would need to allocate only 20bytes; but with the strategy of the compiler we would need 24 bytes. So what i want to learn is
why gcc is making this choice.
The program to test all this follows:
I have read the following articles {but i still haven't figured out what i am asking}:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packed
[2] http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...ary/pa-dalign/
[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms253949.aspx
c Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
Also assume:
sizeof(double): 8
sizeof(int): 4
sizeof(char): 1
sizeof(short): 2
i would expect:
sizeof(align1): 8 + (char padded to->) 4 + 4 + 2 = 18 bytes
but i get:
sizeof(align1): 8 + (char padded to->) 4 + 4 + (short padded to->) 4 = 20 bytes
So what i don't understand is why the compiler pads the structure in the end? Theoretically the compiler could occupy the 2 wasted bytes
of the struct with 2 chars, why waste them on padding?
To make the question more clear if we had:
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
we would need to allocate only 20bytes; but with the strategy of the compiler we would need 24 bytes. So what i want to learn is
why gcc is making this choice.
The program to test all this follows:
c Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
I have read the following articles {but i still haven't figured out what i am asking}:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packed
[2] http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...ary/pa-dalign/
[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms253949.aspx
Last edited by n.aggel; Jul 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 251
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 25
Posting Whiz in Training
So your question is, why does structure alignment apply to the last member of a structure?
I think the answer is the same as for why structure alignment exists in the first place. Structure alignment makes the size of a structure a multiple of the machine's word size, which on your computer is probably 32 bits (4 bytes). This is because it's a lot easier for a computer to read addresses that are aligned at word boundaries.
Consider an array of structures. Padding individual members of the structure isn't much use if you don't pad the last member; the second element in the array won't start at a word boundary.
[edit] In this particular case, the compiler could have made the structure smaller, I suppose. However, the sizeof a structure is always supposed to be the same thing, so your structure would then be virtually useless for arrays. [/edit]
I think the answer is the same as for why structure alignment exists in the first place. Structure alignment makes the size of a structure a multiple of the machine's word size, which on your computer is probably 32 bits (4 bytes). This is because it's a lot easier for a computer to read addresses that are aligned at word boundaries.
Consider an array of structures. Padding individual members of the structure isn't much use if you don't pad the last member; the second element in the array won't start at a word boundary.
[edit] In this particular case, the compiler could have made the structure smaller, I suppose. However, the sizeof a structure is always supposed to be the same thing, so your structure would then be virtually useless for arrays. [/edit]
Last edited by dwks; Jul 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm.
dwk
Seek and ye shall find.
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go."
-- TS Eliot.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
-- Thomas Alva Edison
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing."
-- John Powell
Seek and ye shall find.
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go."
-- TS Eliot.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
-- Thomas Alva Edison
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing."
-- John Powell
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,398
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 1466
You can change the compiler's padding behavior by using some options or pragmas. Microsoft compilers can eliminate padding altogether with
Deleting padding is useful when you want to save data in binary form to a file or xmit it across socket and you don't know what is on the other end. It will also help reduce memory requirements in some applications which use large arrays of those structures.
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
Deleting padding is useful when you want to save data in binary form to a file or xmit it across socket and you don't know what is on the other end. It will also help reduce memory requirements in some applications which use large arrays of those structures.
Don't PM me with questions -- you might get a nasty PM in response. If you have a question then post it in one of the forums.
•
•
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,089
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 164
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
> why the compiler pads the structure in the end?
hint:
1. does the struct
align1 have an alignment requirement?2. if we create an array
align1 array[5] ; would the alignment be right for every element in the array? 
Some addition to dwks's post:
if it were not for structure tail padding, one of the most valuable C and C++ identity
was incorrect for some kind of Type's (as a structure from the original post).
if it were not for structure tail padding, one of the most valuable C and C++ identity
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 202
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 11
Posting Whiz in Training
Thank you all for your answers.
Yes.
I can't understand why pad the structure in the end. Ok if we want an array of align1 elements *then* we have to pad the end. But if don't want an array why the compiler chooses to pad the end?
Take for example the second program where i create a composite struct containing the first struct then why "pay" 24bytes when we can fit the whole composite struct in 20 and at the same time respect the boundary alignment?
The way i see it from the hints of vijayan and the fact that structures are considered to be scalar variable; and have the same behaviour{plz correct me if i am wrong}. The structs are padded so that no padding occurs when we create an array of them, like with a scalar variable because if the compiler padded the struct when it created the array it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers.
Is this notion correct? Can anyone put it more formally?
thanks again for your time,
nicolas
PS: what's the difference between -Wpacked -Wpadded warnings?
•
•
•
•
So your question is, why does structure alignment apply to the last member of a structure?
•
•
•
•
hint:
1. does the struct align1 have an alignment requirement?
2. if we create an array align1 array[5] ; would the alignment be right for every element in the array?
Take for example the second program where i create a composite struct containing the first struct then why "pay" 24bytes when we can fit the whole composite struct in 20 and at the same time respect the boundary alignment?
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
c Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
The way i see it from the hints of vijayan and the fact that structures are considered to be scalar variable; and have the same behaviour{plz correct me if i am wrong}. The structs are padded so that no padding occurs when we create an array of them, like with a scalar variable because if the compiler padded the struct when it created the array it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers.
Is this notion correct? Can anyone put it more formally?
thanks again for your time,
nicolas
PS: what's the difference between -Wpacked -Wpadded warnings?
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
•
•
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,850
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 749
> But if don't want an array why the compiler chooses to pad the end?
How is the compiler supposed to know you don't want an array of them?
> why "pay" 24bytes when we can fit the whole composite struct in 20 and at the
> same time respect the boundary alignment?
The compiler isn't allowed to rearrange structure members to achieve the best fit.
If you want to arrange things so that you waste the least space, then arrange as groups of double, float, long, int, short, char.
double, char, double, char will take more space than
double, double, char, char
> Deleting padding is useful when you want to save data in binary form to a file
> or xmit it across socket and you don't know what is on the other end.
But packing in itself is not enough to ensure success. Packing can never solve the endian problem for example. Also, packing increases the complexity (and decreases the performance) of the code accessing the structure. On some machines, reading a packed int may take 4 byte reads and some shifting, compared to a single aligned 32-bit read if the compiler was free to do it's own thing.
Another also, does pack() actually guarantee a minimum, or just a "best effort"?
Plus there's the whole "lack of portability" in specifying such things to the compiler to begin with.
How is the compiler supposed to know you don't want an array of them?
> why "pay" 24bytes when we can fit the whole composite struct in 20 and at the
> same time respect the boundary alignment?
The compiler isn't allowed to rearrange structure members to achieve the best fit.
If you want to arrange things so that you waste the least space, then arrange as groups of double, float, long, int, short, char.
double, char, double, char will take more space than
double, double, char, char
> Deleting padding is useful when you want to save data in binary form to a file
> or xmit it across socket and you don't know what is on the other end.
But packing in itself is not enough to ensure success. Packing can never solve the endian problem for example. Also, packing increases the complexity (and decreases the performance) of the code accessing the structure. On some machines, reading a packed int may take 4 byte reads and some shifting, compared to a single aligned 32-bit read if the compiler was free to do it's own thing.
Another also, does pack() actually guarantee a minimum, or just a "best effort"?
Plus there's the whole "lack of portability" in specifying such things to the compiler to begin with.
•
•
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,089
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 164
> The structs are padded so that no padding occurs when we create an array of them,
> like with a scalar variable because if the compiler padded the struct when it created the
> array it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers.
> Is this notion correct?
not merely 'it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers'. array subscript and pointer arithmetic would not work otherwise.
> an anyone put it more formally?
the formal exposition is in the legalese in the IS (ISO/IEC 14882).
but this arises out of a few simple requirements:
1. the layout and sizeof an object of a particular compile-time type should be known at compile-time.
2. these have to be independent of the storage duration of the object.
3. these also have to be independent of whether the object is an element of an array, a member of a class, a base class sub-object etc.
4. object types can have alignment requirements.
5. an object should be allocated at an address that meets the alignment requirements of its object type.
6. array subscript and pointer arithmetic should work correctly.
7. the memory model of C++ should be compatible with that of C89.
here is a (poor) attempt at a formal explanation:
the layout of A and sizeof(A) are known at compile-time and would be the same for all objects of type A, independent of the storage duration of the object. and independent of whether the object is an element of an array, a member of a class, a base class sub-object etc.
in an array, no padding can be added between elements of an array. required for pointer arithmetic (and array subscript) to work correctly.
because of this, the sizeof(A) has to be an integral multiple of the alignof(A). and alignof(A) cannot be less than the alignof(any member of A).
for example, in an implementation where the sizeof(int) == 4 and the alignof(int) == 4, the alignof(A) == 4 and the layout of A could be
but not
(required for C compatibility)
and not (also required for C compatibility)
unless A is empty (and empty base class or empty member optimization applies), the padding at the end of A cannot be used to accommodate the member d.
Lippman in 'The C++ Object Model' explains it very well.
> like with a scalar variable because if the compiler padded the struct when it created the
> array it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers.
> Is this notion correct?
not merely 'it wouldn't be the same behaviour we have when we created an array of integers'. array subscript and pointer arithmetic would not work otherwise.
> an anyone put it more formally?
the formal exposition is in the legalese in the IS (ISO/IEC 14882).
but this arises out of a few simple requirements:
1. the layout and sizeof an object of a particular compile-time type should be known at compile-time.
2. these have to be independent of the storage duration of the object.
3. these also have to be independent of whether the object is an element of an array, a member of a class, a base class sub-object etc.
4. object types can have alignment requirements.
5. an object should be allocated at an address that meets the alignment requirements of its object type.
6. array subscript and pointer arithmetic should work correctly.
7. the memory model of C++ should be compatible with that of C89.
here is a (poor) attempt at a formal explanation:
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
in an array, no padding can be added between elements of an array. required for pointer arithmetic (and array subscript) to work correctly.
•
•
•
•
... An object of array type contains a contiguously allocated non-empty set of N sub-objects of type T. ... IS 8.3.4/1
for example, in an implementation where the sizeof(int) == 4 and the alignof(int) == 4, the alignof(A) == 4 and the layout of A could be
char a, 3 bytes padding, int b, char c, 3 bytes padding .but not
char a, char c, 2 bytes padding, int b. •
•
•
•
Nonstatic data members of a (non-union) class declared without an intervening access-specifier are allocated so that later members have higher addresses within a class object. ... IS 9.2/12
and not
3 bytes padding, char a, int b, char c, 3 bytes padding •
•
•
•
A pointer to a POD-struct object, suitably converted using a reinterpret_cast, points to its initial member (or if that member is a bit-field, then to the unit in which it resides) and vice versa.
[Note: There might therefore be unnamed padding within a POD-struct object, but not at its beginning, as necessary to achieve appropriate alignment. ] IS 9.2/17
C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)
unless A is empty (and empty base class or empty member optimization applies), the padding at the end of A cannot be used to accommodate the member d.
•
•
•
•
The object representation of an object of type T is the sequence of N unsigned char objects taken up by the object of type T, where N equals sizeof(T). ...
[Footnote: The intent is that the memory model of C++ is compatible with that of ISO/IEC 9899 Programming Language C. --- end foonote] IS 3.9/4
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 202
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 11
Posting Whiz in Training
thanks for your help... everything makes much more sense now. the 7 requirements that vijayan posted made everything clear. There are some things that i don't quite get in the last post,
like:
alignof operator(?)
or
but i wil read part of the C++ object model{Lippman's book}, and then if i still have these questions i will ask again!
like:
alignof operator(?)
or
•
•
•
•
but not char a, char c, 2 bytes padding, int b.
Last edited by n.aggel; Jul 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
by Robert Frost the "The Road Not Taken"
 |
Similar Threads
- JLable Alignement in Box (Java)
- Restrictions on pointer tyeps? (C++)
Other Threads in the C++ Forum
- Previous Thread: Would this make a differance
- Next Thread: linker error
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest C++ Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
api array arrays based beginner binary bitmap c++ c/c++ calculator char char* class classes coding compile compiler console conversion count data database delete deploy desktop developer directshow dll dynamiccharacterarray email encryption error file forms fstream function functions game getline google graph homeworkhelp homeworkhelper iamthwee ifstream input int integer lib linkedlist linux list loop looping loops map math matrix memory multiple news node number numbertoword output parameter pointer problem program programming project proxy python random read recursion recursive reference return rpg sorting string strings struct template templates text tree unix url vector video visual visualstudio win32 windows winsock word wordfrequency wxwidgets
