446,412 Members | 978 Online
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,412 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# comparing sizes of two structures

 P: n/a Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4, TYPE5, of data. Consider the structures: struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5; } var_one; struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5; } var_two; How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be the same or different ? Mar 7 '07 #1
20 Replies

 P: n/a su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote: Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4, TYPE5, of data. Consider the structures: struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5; } var_one; struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5; } var_two; How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be the same or different ? Either, it depends on the types and the implementation. -- Ian Collins. Mar 7 '07 #2

 P: n/a su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote: Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4, TYPE5, of data. Consider the structures: struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5; } var_one; struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5; } var_two; How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be the same or different ? It depends on the compiler and the characteristics, (mainly alignment requirements), of your types. Mar 7 '07 #3

 P: n/a On 7 Mar 2007 00:16:50 -0800, "su**************@yahoo.com, India" Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4,TYPE5, of data.Consider the structures:struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5;} var_one;struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5;} var_two;How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be thesame or different ? They could be the same or they could be different. It depends on the exact types of TYPE* and on the compiler. Compilers can add padding in order to align fields on their natural boundaries, and there is no guarantee that one compiler will pack fields the same as another compiler, especially so when the compilers target different platforms. Try compiling and running the following: #include #include typedef char TYPE1; typedef double TYPE2; typedef int TYPE3; typedef short TYPE4; typedef long TYPE5; struct s1 { TYPE1 d1; TYPE2 d2; TYPE3 d3; TYPE4 d4; TYPE5 d5; } var_one; struct s2 { TYPE2 d1; TYPE5 d2; TYPE1 d3; TYPE3 d4; TYPE4 d5; } var_two; int main(void) { printf("s1 offsets:\n"); printf("offsetof(d1) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d1)); printf("offsetof(d2) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d2)); printf("offsetof(d3) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d3)); printf("offsetof(d4) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d4)); printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d5)); printf("\n"); printf("s2 offsets:\n"); printf("offsetof(d1) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d1)); printf("offsetof(d2) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d2)); printf("offsetof(d3) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d3)); printf("offsetof(d4) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d4)); printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); return 0; } My conforming C implementation outputs: s1 offsets: offsetof(d1) = 0 offsetof(d2) = 8 offsetof(d3) = 16 offsetof(d4) = 20 offsetof(d5) = 24 s2 offsets: offsetof(d1) = 0 offsetof(d2) = 8 offsetof(d3) = 12 offsetof(d4) = 16 offsetof(d5) = 20 Press any key to continue Regards -- jay Mar 7 '07 #4

 P: n/a su**************@yahoo.com, India How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be thesame or different ? Like others have said, it depends, but I'd answer in general "probably different". In the last big project I worked on, we'd allocate tons of structures at run time, and the platform was relatively limited in memory. As part of our optimizations, we went back and rearranged the fields in the structs by hand so the compiler would put less padding in. We realized significant memory savings. -Beej Mar 7 '07 #5

 P: n/a su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote: Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4, TYPE5, of data. Consider the structures: struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5; } var_one; struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5; } var_two; How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be the same or different ? Yes, one or the other. Why do you care? -- Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin "Possibly you're not recalling some of his previous plans." Zoe, /Firefly/ Mar 7 '07 #6

 P: n/a jaysome wrote: On 7 Mar 2007 00:16:50 -0800, "su**************@yahoo.com, India" #include typedef char TYPE1; typedef double TYPE2; typedef int TYPE3; typedef short TYPE4; typedef long TYPE5; struct s1 { TYPE1 d1; TYPE2 d2; TYPE3 d3; TYPE4 d4; TYPE5 d5; } var_one; struct s2 { TYPE2 d1; TYPE5 d2; TYPE1 d3; TYPE3 d4; TYPE4 d5; } var_two; int main(void) { printf("s1 offsets:\n"); printf("offsetof(d1) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d1)); printf("offsetof(d2) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d2)); printf("offsetof(d3) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d3)); printf("offsetof(d4) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d4)); printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s1, d5)); printf("\n"); printf("s2 offsets:\n"); printf("offsetof(d1) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d1)); printf("offsetof(d2) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d2)); printf("offsetof(d3) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d3)); printf("offsetof(d4) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d4)); printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); return 0; } Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int? Mar 7 '07 #7

 P: n/a santosh wrote: jaysome wrote: (quelle snippage!) > printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); return 0;} Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int? So they can print them using %d? -- Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin The shortcuts are all full of people using them. Mar 7 '07 #8

 P: n/a Chris Dollin wrote: santosh wrote: jaysome wrote: (quelle snippage!) printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); return 0; } Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int? So they can print them using %d? I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, (since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn't implement C99). So it was a bit strange. Mar 7 '07 #9

 P: n/a santosh wrote: Chris Dollin wrote: >santosh wrote: >>jaysome wrote: (quelle snippage!) >>> printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); return 0;}Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int? So they can print them using %d? I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, So you'd cast to long instead of int. (since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn't implement C99). Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. Yevgen Mar 7 '07 #10

 P: n/a hi, you can handle this byte alignment issue by using __attribute__((__packed__)) with each structure element. then each one of them will be allocated only minimum number of bytes needed.You can save the memory requirements if u have huge structures. thanx. rk. su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote: Suppose there are five DISTINCT types TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3, TYPE4, TYPE5, of data. Consider the structures: struct struct_one { TYPE1 data1; TYPE2 data2; TYPE3 data3; TYPE4 data4; TYPE5 data5; } var_one; struct struct_two { TYPE2 data1; TYPE5 data2; TYPE1 data3; TYPE3 data4; TYPE4 data5; } var_two; How do the sizes of var_one and var_two compare - will they be the same or different ? Mar 7 '07 #11

 P: n/a On 7 Mar 2007 06:54:09 -0800, "Rahul" wrote: >you can handle this byte alignment issue by using__attribute__((__packed__)) with each structure element. then each oneof them will be allocated only minimum number of bytes needed.You cansave the memory requirements if u have huge structures. This is an implementation specific feature and is not portable. When you are offering implementation specific suggestions, it would be a very good idea to mark it as such. Have a nice day, Pradeep -- All opinions are mine and do not represent the views or policies of my employer. R Pradeep Chandran rpc AT pobox DOT com Mar 7 '07 #12

 P: n/a

 P: n/a Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 14:15: santosh wrote: >Chris Dollin wrote: >>santosh wrote:jaysome wrote:(quelle snippage!) printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5));> return 0;}Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int?So they can print them using %d? I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, So you'd cast to long instead of int. No, read it again. Santosh would have to cast to unsigned long. Casting size_t to an unsigned type makes far more sense than a signed type (size_t being unsigned). unsigned long makes sense because it is the largest unsigned type a C90 implementation is guaranteed to have. >(since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn'timplement C99). Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. It does make a certain amount of sense on 64 bit platforms. Although I would have gone for increasing the size of long to 64 bits myself. -- Flash Gordon Mar 7 '07 #14

 P: n/a On Mar 7, 3:15 pm, Yevgen Muntyan (since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn't implement C99). Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. Um... not on my 32-bit (XP), they're both 4 bytes and size_t is a typedef to unsigned int. On 64-bit it's a typedef to __int64, and (IIRC) they decided to stick with 32-bit long. -- WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get Mar 7 '07 #15

 P: n/a Flash Gordon wrote: Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 14:15: >santosh wrote: >>Chris Dollin wrote:santosh wrote:jaysome wrote:(quelle snippage!)> printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5));>>> return 0;>}Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int?So they can print them using %d?I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, So you'd cast to long instead of int. No, read it again. Santosh would have to cast to unsigned long. Casting size_t to an unsigned type makes far more sense than a signed type (size_t being unsigned). unsigned long makes sense because it is the largest unsigned type a C90 implementation is guaranteed to have. Wording sloppiness, "long" meant "unsigned long", I just wanted to say he'd cast anyway (and for practical purposes int is as good if you take structure offset). >>(since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn'timplement C99). Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. It does make a certain amount of sense on 64 bit platforms. Although I would have gone for increasing the size of long to 64 bits myself. Yes, it's win64. I also agree it's no good. Yevgen Mar 7 '07 #16

 P: n/a matevzb wrote: On Mar 7, 3:15 pm, Yevgen Muntyan >>(since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn'timplement C99). Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. Um... not on my 32-bit (XP), they're both 4 bytes and size_t is a typedef to unsigned int. On 64-bit it's a typedef to __int64, and (IIRC) they decided to stick with 32-bit long. So long is 4 bytes, and size_t is 8 bytes, i.e. long is smaller than size_t (where "smaller" means sizeof...). Yevgen Mar 7 '07 #17

 P: n/a Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 17:51: Flash Gordon wrote: >Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 14:15: >>santosh wrote:Chris Dollin wrote:santosh wrote:>>jaysome wrote:(quelle snippage!)>>> printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5));>>>>> return 0;>>}>Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int?So they can print them using %d?I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible,So you'd cast to long instead of int. No, read it again. Santosh would have to cast to unsigned long.Casting size_t to an unsigned type makes far more sense than a signedtype (size_t being unsigned). unsigned long makes sense because it isthe largest unsigned type a C90 implementation is guaranteed to have. Wording sloppiness, "long" meant "unsigned long", I just wanted to say he'd cast anyway (and for practical purposes int is as good if you take structure offset). It makes a big difference to the correctness of the code. >>>(since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn'timplement C99).Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. It does make a certain amount of sense on 64 bit platforms. Although Iwould have gone for increasing the size of long to 64 bits myself. Yes, it's win64. I also agree it's no good. Read what I said again. It does make a certain amount of sense, it is just not what I would have done. MS wanted to avoid breaking other peoples code more than they needed to (possibly their own as well) and made the choice on that basis. -- Flash Gordon Mar 7 '07 #18

 P: n/a "Rahul" San Diego Supercomputer Center <* "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" Mar 7 '07 #19

 P: n/a On Mar 7, 12:38 pm, Flash Gordon >>>jaysome wrote:(quelle snippage!) >>>>> printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); >>>>> return 0;>}Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int?So they can print them using %d? >>I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, >So you'd cast to long instead of int. No, read it again. Santosh would have to cast to unsigned long. Casting size_t to an unsigned type makes far more sense than a signed type (size_t being unsigned). unsigned long makes sense because it is the largest unsigned type a C90 implementation is guaranteed to have. Wording sloppiness, "long" meant "unsigned long", I just wanted to say he'd cast anyway (and for practical purposes int is as good if you take structure offset). It makes a big difference to the correctness of the code. It's easier to write %d and (int) in ten line programs whose whole purpose is to print structure member offsets. Note that the program *was* correct (there doesn't exist a computer where 2*sizeof(double)+2*sizeof(long)+padding INTMAX). Besides, ironically, cast to unsigned long is almost as bad as cast to int. If implementation was sufficiently weird (which it isn't), both could break. unsigned long is as correct as int: both can break (in weird theory); both ranges are smaller than size_t range on some *existing* implementations; both work on all existing implementations. Once something goes out the int range, it will break on win64 if you use long ;) >>(since jaysome appears to use Microsoft's Visual C++, which doesn'timplement C99). >Microsoft is one of funny vendors who have long smaller than size_t. It does make a certain amount of sense on 64 bit platforms. Although I would have gone for increasing the size of long to 64 bits myself. Yes, it's win64. I also agree it's no good. Read what I said again. It does make a certain amount of sense, it is just not what I would have done. MS wanted to avoid breaking other peoples code more than they needed to (possibly their own as well) and made the choice on that basis. Sorry, I read "not what I would have done" as "it would be better in my opinion not to make that". It is not quite "no good", so I could not agree it's no good since you didn't say it's no good. I apologize for making it look like I think you think MS did no good thing. Yevgen Mar 7 '07 #20

 P: n/a On 7 Mar 2007 13:38:32 -0800, ym******@gmail.com wrote: >On Mar 7, 12:38 pm, Flash Gordon Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 17:51: Flash Gordon wrote:Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 07/03/07 14:15:santosh wrote:Chris Dollin wrote:santosh wrote: >>>>>jaysome wrote:(quelle snippage!) >>>>>> printf("offsetof(d5) = %d\n", (int)offsetof(struct s2, d5)); >>>>>> return 0;>>}>Why do cast the type size_t value yielded by offsetof into int?So they can print them using %d? >>>I know that. I would've myself used %lu, if %zu was not possible, >>So you'd cast to long instead of int. >No, read it again. Santosh would have to cast to unsigned long.Casting size_t to an unsigned type makes far more sense than a signedtype (size_t being unsigned). unsigned long makes sense because it isthe largest unsigned type a C90 implementation is guaranteed to have. Wording sloppiness, "long" meant "unsigned long", I just wanted to say he'd cast anyway (and for practical purposes int is as good if you take structure offset). It makes a big difference to the correctness of the code. It's easier to write %d and (int) in ten line programs whose wholepurpose is to print structure member offsets. Note that theprogram *was* correct (there doesn't exist a computer where2*sizeof(double)+2*sizeof(long)+padding INTMAX).Besides, ironically, cast to unsigned long is almost as badas cast to int. If implementation was sufficiently weird (whichit isn't), both could break. unsigned long is as correctas int: both can break (in weird theory); both ranges are smaller thansize_t range on some *existing* implementations; both work on allexisting implementations. Once something goes out the int range,it will break on win64 if you use long ;) That is pretty much my thinking. Since it was basically a 10 line program in which the structure members were basic types like char, short, int, long and double, it's always safe to printf() the offsetof these members using a conversion specifier of "%d" and casting the arguments to int. Quick and dirty, yet effective. -- jay Mar 8 '07 #21

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.