Is the size of a struct required to be an exact multiple of the alignment of that struct?
- by Steve314
Once again, I'm questioning a longstanding belief.
Until today, I believed that the alignment of the following struct would normally be 4 and the size would normally be 5...
struct example
{
int m_Assume_32_Bits;
char m_Assume_8_Bit_Bytes;
};
Because of this assumption, I have data structure code that uses offsetof to determine the distance in bytes between two adjacent items in an array. Today, I spotted some old code that was using sizeof where it shouldn't, couldn't understand why I hadn't had bugs from it, coded up a unit test - and the test surprised me by passing.
A bit of investigation showed that the sizeof the type I used for the test (similar to the struct above) was an exact multiple of the alignment - ie 8 bytes. It had padding after the final member. Here is an example of why I never expected this...
struct example2
{
example m_Example;
char m_Why_Cant_This_Be_At_Offset_6_Bytes;
};
A bit of Googling showed examples that make it clear that this padding after the final member is allowed - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure_alignment#Data_structure_padding (the "or at the end of the structure" bit).
This is a bit embarrassing, as I recently posted this comment - Use of struct padding (my first comment to that answer).
What I can't seem to determine is whether this padding to an exact multiple of the alignment is guaranteed by the C++ standard, or whether it is just something that is permitted and that some (but maybe not all) compilers do.
So - is the size of a struct required to be an exact multiple of the alignment of that struct according to the C++ standard?
If the C standard makes different guarantees, I'm interested in that too, but the focus is on C++.
