Why #pragma pack(1)???

[chi]

Why does PB align structures to a 1 byte boundary by default? There must be a good reason for that, right?!

[PeDe]

Maybe for compatibility with Visual Basic <= 5. Only later VB6 used the C standard with user types.

Peter

[chi]

Maybe for compatibility with Visual Basic <= 5. Only later VB6 used the C standard with user types.

Ok, maybe. But this downward "compatibility" forces me to add Align #PB_Structure_AlignC to every structure I create, just (in case) to get proper padding. Internal structures are already padded by PB (PB_Alignment) so adding pack(1) makes sense, but my own structures shouldn't be packed by default...

[Caronte3D]

...forces me to add Align #PB_Structure_AlignC to every structure I create...

I'm a neofitos on this matter Which is the purpose of doing that?

[mk-soft]

I hope it stays that way. I use a lot of structures for communication. I also use overlays of structures a lot.
They have to be packed 1 like this.

[chi]

...forces me to add Align #PB_Structure_AlignC to every structure I create...

I'm a neofitos on this matter Which is the purpose of doing that?

Aligned memory access is faster than unaligned...

I hope it stays that way. I use a lot of structures for communication. I also use overlays of structures a lot.
They have to be packed 1 like this.

I know there are situations where structure packing is useful (e.g. sending data over tcp/udp), but most of the time I would prefer performance over size.

[STARGÅTE]

...forces me to add Align #PB_Structure_AlignC to every structure I create...

I'm a neofitos on this matter Which is the purpose of doing that?

Aligned memory access is faster than unaligned...

All structure and variable memories are aligned in Pure Basic. Only the fields itself become unaligned when non-processor-word fields are included. However, if you prefer performance over size, you would anyway use always integers and doubles instead of bytes, words, longs, etc.