Optimal struct layout template?

[Sergey Gromov]

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:08:12 +0100, Don wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:12:18 +0300, Sergey Gromov 
>>>>> Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:09:41 +0100, Don wrote:
>>>>>> struct Foo { double, int } // 12 byte size, wants 8-byte alignment.
>>>>> Foo.sizeof is 16.
> 
> Sergey is correct to the extent that in DMD, x.alignof <= x.sizeof for 
> any x, and also x.sizeof is always an integer multiple of x.alignof.
> When you assume that DMD is correct, then the simple ordering by 
> .alignof indeed gives an optimal solution.

I think this is not something you can assume or not assume.  The set of
conditions you mention is required and sufficient to respect alignment
requirements of array elements while obeying the rules of pointer math.
You cannot change them until you drop either pointer math or alignment
guarantees.

> But these values *don't* reflect the machine behaviour.
> 
> real.alignof is 2. But it's significantly faster (factor of 2) on most 
> x86 machines to have real aligned to 16.

If you want size, you can use align():

struct ReallySmall
{
  int flags;
  align(2) real value;
  byte flags2;
  align(2) real value2;
}

Now ReallySmall.value.alignof == 2, and sorting will give you

struct ReallySmallSorted
{
  int flags;
  align(2) real value;
  align(2) real value2;
  byte flags2;
}

with ReallySmallSorted.sizeof == 28 and .alignof == 4 on Windows.

> These effects are not captured by the .alignof property for structs. To 
> capture it in the Foo example, you'd need (for example) a 
> Foo.memberalignof property, and a Foo.memberalignoffsetof property.

I don't understand this part.  Do you say that fields in different
elements of the same array should be aligned differently?