I'm investigation how different compilers handle unaligned access of structure bitfields members as well as members that cross the primitive types' boundaries, and I think MinGW64 is bugged. My test program is:
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
/* Structure for testing element access
The crux is the ISO C99 6.7.2.1p10 item:
An implementation may allocate any addressable storage unit large enough to hold a bitfield.
If enough space remains, a bit-field that immediately follows another bit-field in a
structure shall be packed into adjacent bits of the same unit. If insufficient space remains,
whether a bit-field that does not fit is put into the next unit or overlaps adjacent units is
implementation-defined. The order of allocation of bit-fields within a unit (high-order to
low-order or low-order to high-order) is implementation-defined. The alignment of the
addressable storage unit is unspecified.
*/
typedef struct _my_struct
{
/* word 0 */
uint32_t first :32; /**< A whole word element */
/* word 1 */
uint32_t second :8; /**< bits 7-0 */
uint32_t third :8; /**< bits 15-8 */
uint32_t fourth :8; /**< bits 23-16 */
uint32_t fifth :8; /**< bits 31-24 */
/* word 2 */
uint32_t sixth :16; /**< bits 15-0 */
uint32_t seventh :16; /**< bits 31-16 */
/* word 3 */
uint32_t eigth :24; /**< bits 23-0 */
uint32_t ninth :8; /**< bits 31-24 */
/* word 4 */
uint32_t tenth :8; /**< bits 7-0 */
uint32_t eleventh :24; /**< bits 31-8 */
/* word 5 */
uint32_t twelfth :8; /**< bits 7-0 */
uint32_t thirteeneth :16; /**< bits 23-8 */
uint32_t fourteenth :8; /**< bits 31-24 */
/* words 6 & 7 */
uint32_t fifteenth :16; /**< bits 15-0 */
uint32_t sixteenth :8; /**< bits 23-16 */
uint32_t seventeenth :16; /**< bits 31-24 & 7-0 */
/* word 7 */
uint32_t eighteenth :24; /**< bits 31-8 */
/* word 8 */
uint32_t nineteenth :32; /**< bits 31-0 */
/* words 9 & 10 */
uint32_t twentieth :16; /**< bits 15-0 */
uint32_t twenty_first :32; /**< bits 31-16 & 15-0 */
uint32_t twenty_second :16; /**< bits 31-16 */
/* word 11 */
uint32_t twenty_third :32; /**< bits 31-0 */
} __attribute__((packed)) my_struct;
uint32_t buf[] = {
0x11223344, 0x55667788, 0x99AABBCC, 0x01020304, /* words 0 - 3 */
0x05060708, 0x090A0B0C, 0x0D0E0F10, 0x12131415, /* words 4 - 7 */
0x16171819, 0x20212324, 0x25262728, 0x29303132, /* words 8 - 11 */
0x34353637, 0x35363738, 0x39404142, 0x43454647 /* words 12 - 15 */
};
uint32_t data[64];
int main(void)
{
my_struct *p;
p = (my_struct*) buf;
data[0] = 0;
data[1] = p->first;
data[2] = p->second;
data[3] = p->third;
data[4] = p->fourth;
data[5] = p->fifth;
data[6] = p->sixth;
data[7] = p->seventh;
data[8] = p->eigth;
data[9] = p->ninth;
data[10] = p->tenth;
data[11] = p->eleventh;
data[12] = p->twelfth;
data[13] = p->thirteeneth;
data[14] = p->fourteenth;
data[15] = p->fifteenth;
data[16] = p->sixteenth;
data[17] = p->seventeenth;
data[18] = p->eighteenth;
data[19] = p->nineteenth;
data[20] = p->twentieth;
data[21] = p->twenty_first;
data[22] = p->twenty_second;
data[23] = p->twenty_third;
if( p->fifth == 0x55 )
{
data[0] = 0xCAFECAFE;
}
else
{
data[0] = 0xDEADBEEF;
}
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 24; ++i) {
printf("data[%d] = 0x%0x\n", i, data[i]);
}
return data[0];
}
And the results I found are:
| Data Member | Type | GCC Cortex M3 | GCC mingw64 | GCC Linux | GCC Cygwin |
|:------------|:-------:|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|:--------------|
| data[0] | uint32_t| 0x0 | 0xcafecafe | 0xcafecafe | 0xcafecafe |
| data[1] | uint32_t| 0x11223344 | 0x11223344 | 0x11223344 | 0x11223344 |
| data[2] | uint32_t| 0x88 | 0x88 | 0x88 | 0x88 |
| data[3] | uint32_t| 0x77 | 0x77 | 0x77 | 0x77 |
| data[4] | uint32_t| 0x66 | 0x66 | 0x66 | 0x66 |
| data[5] | uint32_t| 0x55 | 0x55 | 0x55 | 0x55 |
| data[6] | uint32_t| 0xbbcc | 0xbbcc | 0xbbcc | 0xbbcc |
| data[7] | uint32_t| 0x99aa | 0x99aa | 0x99aa | 0x99aa |
| data[8] | uint32_t| 0x20304 | 0x20304 | 0x20304 | 0x20304 |
| data[9] | uint32_t| 0x1 | 0x1 | 0x1 | 0x1 |
| data[10] | uint32_t| 0x8 | 0x8 | 0x8 | 0x8 |
| data[11] | uint32_t| 0x50607 | 0x50607 | 0x50607 | 0x50607 |
| data[12] | uint32_t| 0xc | 0xc | 0xc | 0xc |
| data[13] | uint32_t| 0xa0b | 0xa0b | 0xa0b | 0xa0b |
| data[14] | uint32_t| 0x9 | 0x9 | 0x9 | 0x9 |
| data[15] | uint32_t| 0xf10 | 0xf10 | 0xf10 | 0xf10 |
| data[16] | uint32_t| 0xe | 0xe | 0xe | 0xe |
| data[17] | uint32_t| 0x150d | 0x1415 | 0x150d | 0x150d |
| data[18] | uint32_t| 0x121314 | 0x171819 | 0x121314 | 0x121314 |
| data[19] | uint32_t| 0x16171819 | 0x20212324 | 0x16171819 | 0x16171819 |
| data[20] | uint32_t| 0x2324 | 0x2728 | 0x2324 | 0x2324 |
| data[21] | uint32_t| 0x27282021 | 0x29303132 | 0x27282021 | 0x27282021 |
| data[22] | uint32_t| 0x2526 | 0x3637 | 0x2526 | 0x2526 |
| data[23] | uint32_t| 0x29303132 | 0x35363738 | 0x29303132 | 0x29303132 |
GCC Cortex M3 is
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU MCU Eclipse ARM Embedded GCC, 32-bit) 8.2.1 20181213 (release) [gcc-8-branch revision 267074]
GCC Mingw is
gcc.exe (i686-posix-dwarf-rev0, Built by MinGW-W64 project) 8.1.0
GCC Linux is
gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-23)
GCC Cygwin is
gcc (GCC) 7.4.0
All GCC versions seem to correctly handle unaligned access (like my_struct.thirteeneth).
The problem is not that members who cross the word boundary (my_struct.seventeenth) are different, as the C99 standard quoted above clearly states that the behaviour is implementation-defined. The problem is that all subsequent accesses are clearly incorrect (data[17] and on) even for aligned members (my_struct.nineteenth & my_struct.twenty_third). What's going on here, is this a bug or are these valid values?
It is not bugged, it lays the bitfields according to windows ABI.
According to gcc docs:
If packed is used on a structure, or if bit-fields are used, it may be that the Microsoft ABI lays out the structure differently than the way GCC normally does.
Compile mingw64 version with -mno-ms-bitfields to fix the difference. Or compile all other versions with -mms-bitfields to lay out the structure the same as mingw.