[sumtechguy]

Also keep in mind that is also all very CPU and compiler specific. Had one compiler where it packed everything at 4/8, usually 8. Not the 1/2/4/8 you would expect. That was because the CPU would just seg fault if you didnt play nice with the data access. The compiler hid a lot of it if you set the packing with offsets and mem moves and shifting. It was clever but slow. So they by default picked a wide enough packing that removed the extra instructions at the cost of using more memory. x86 was by far the most forgiving while at the time I was doing it. ARM was the least forgiving (at least on the platform I was using). With MIPS being OK in some cases but not others.

[jandrewrogers]

Some of the Cray hardware was basically pure 64-bit. The systems largely didn’t recognize smaller granularity. I learned a lot of lessons about writing portable C by writing code for Cray systems.

[neeeeees]

On one of these less forgiving architectures, how does one write programs that read some bytes off the network, bitcast them into a struct, and do something based on that?

On x86 you would use a packed struct that matches the wire protocol.

Wouldn’t this require extra copying if member reads were forced to be aligned?

[sumtechguy]

yep exactly that. I had that exact issue. Junk coming in from a tcp/ppp connection then had to unpack it. Tons of garbage moves and byte offsetting and then making sure you keep the endianness correct too. On the platform I was using luckily memcpy could do most of what I needed. Not the best way to do it but the wildly out of date branch of gcc could do it. Got pretty good at picking junk out of random streams shifting and and/or whatever was needed. Totally useless skill for what I work on these days.

[gavinsyancey]

Um ... isn't alignment generally dictated by the platform ABI so that programs compiled by different compilers can be linked together?

[plorkyeran]

The widely used platforms with multiple compilers generally have one or more written down ABIs that the compilers all follow, but more niche platforms frequently have exactly one compiler (often a very out of date fork of gcc) that just does whatever they felt like implementing and may not even support linking together things built by different versions of that one compiler.

[sumtechguy]

We had that exact thing. Our target at the time was about 6 different platforms. 2 of them had very picky compilers/ABI. We were trying to keep it to one codebase with minimal if-def callouts. Learned very quickly not all compilers are the same even thought they may have the same name and version number. Then the std libs are subtly different enough from each other you really have to pay attention to what you are doing.

[bobmcnamara]

Ideally yes, but practically there are at least a dozen just for x86.(there's like 3 big ones).