From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: immediate strings #2 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:36 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4ED35057.8010103@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1322518103 580 80.91.229.12 (28 Nov 2011 22:08:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dmitry Antipov , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 28 23:08:17 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RV9Mx-0002et-Q3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:08:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60228 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RV99z-0006Om-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RV99t-0006Oh-Ce for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RV99s-0003qu-03 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:41 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:41802) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RV99r-0003qq-Ku for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:39 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pASLsb9l005020; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:37 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id EAFA158BB2; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:54:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:10:24 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4055=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9286 : core <4055> : streams <706055> : uri <1017817> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146324 Archived-At: >> I don't know any C compiler able to allocate unions at the bit level, > It can't since it's not a bitfield (which isn't possible anyway). Not that it's relevant to Emacs, but I don't know which part of the C standard would force a C compiler to layout all unions at an "addressable" offset. I mean, wouldn't it be valid for a compiler to analyze the whole program and decide "oh, the code uses the union in such a way that I can bit-align it to save some padding space and noone will notice"? Stefan