🚀 go-pugleaf

> > "There may be [therefore] unnamed padding within a structure object, but
> >  not at its beginning, as necessary to achieve the appropriate alignment."
> 
> This wording was chosen very carefully -- in particular, the use of
> "appropriate" as opposed to "necessary".  It is the implementor who
> decides what alignment is "appropriate", so anything goes.

This is a curious remark, considering that the quoted passage *does*
include the word "necessary".  Until and unless there is an Interpret-
ation Ruling to the contrary, I'll continue to opine that "necessary"
implies no padding between adjacent members of identical type.
-- 
Mark Brader		     "It is impractical for the standard to attempt to
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	      constrain the behavior of code that does not obey
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com      the constraints of the standard."  -- Doug Gwyn

This article is in the public domain.