This is one of those I think this should work, but it's best to check questions. It compiles and works fine on my machine.
Is this guaranteed to do what I expect (i.e. allow me to access the first few elements of the array with a guarantee that the layout, alignment, padding etc of the struct is the same as the array)?
struct thingStruct
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
void f()
{
int thingsArray[5];
struct thingStruct *thingsStruct = (struct thingStruct *)&thingsArray[0];
thingsArray[0] = 100;
thingsArray[1] = 200;
thingsArray[2] = 300;
printf("%d", thingsStruct->a);
printf("%d", thingsStruct->b);
printf("%d", thingsStruct->c);
}
EDIT: Why on earth would I want to do something like this? I have an array which I'm mmapping to a file. I'm treating the first part of the array as a 'header', which stores various pieces of information about the array, and the rest of it I'm treating as a normal array. If I point the struct to the start of the array I can access the pieces of header data as struct members, which is more readable. All the members in the struct would be of the same type as the array.
While I have seen this done frequently, you cannot (meaning it is not legal, standard C) make assumptions about the binary layout of a structure, as it may have padding between fields.
This is explained in the comp.lang.c faq: http://c-faq.com/struct/padding.htmls
Although it's likely to work in most places, it's still a bit iffy. If you want to give symbolic names to parts of the header, why not just do:
enum { HEADER_A, HEADER_B, HEADER_C };
/* ... */.
printf("%d", thingsArray[HEADER_A]);
printf("%d", thingsArray[HEADER_B]);
printf("%d", thingsArray[HEADER_C]);
As Evan commented on the question, this will probably work in most cases (again, probably best if you use #pragma pack to ensure their is no padding) assuming all the types in your struct are the same type as your array. Given the rules of C, this is legal.
My question to you is "why?" This isn't a particularly safe thing to do. If a float gets thrown into the middle of the struct, this all falls apart. Why not just use the struct directly? This really ins't a technique that I'd recommend in most cases.
Another solution for representing a header and the rest of file data is using a structure like this:
struct header {
long headerData1;
int headerData2;
int headerData3;
int fileData[ 1 ]; // <- data begin here
};
Then you allocate the memory block with a file contents and cast it as struct header *myFileHeader (or map the memory block on a file) and access all your file data with
myFileHeader->fileData[ position ]
for arbitrary big position. The language imposes no restriction on the index value, so it's only your responsibility to keep your arbitrary big posistion within the actual size of the memory block you allocated (or the mapped file's size).
One more important note: apart from switching off the struct members padding, which has been already described by others, you should carefully choose data types for the header members, so that they fit the actual file data layout despite compiler you use (say, int won't change from 32 to 64 bits...)
Related
I am working on refactoring some old code and have found few structs containing zero length arrays (below). Warnings depressed by pragma, of course, but I've failed to create by "new" structures containing such structures (error 2233). Array 'byData' used as pointer, but why not to use pointer instead? or array of length 1? And of course, no comments were added to make me enjoy the process...
Any causes to use such thing? Any advice in refactoring those?
struct someData
{
int nData;
BYTE byData[0];
}
NB It's C++, Windows XP, VS 2003
Yes this is a C-Hack.
To create an array of any length:
struct someData* mallocSomeData(int size)
{
struct someData* result = (struct someData*)malloc(sizeof(struct someData) + size * sizeof(BYTE));
if (result)
{ result->nData = size;
}
return result;
}
Now you have an object of someData with an array of a specified length.
There are, unfortunately, several reasons why you would declare a zero length array at the end of a structure. It essentially gives you the ability to have a variable length structure returned from an API.
Raymond Chen did an excellent blog post on the subject. I suggest you take a look at this post because it likely contains the answer you want.
Note in his post, it deals with arrays of size 1 instead of 0. This is the case because zero length arrays are a more recent entry into the standards. His post should still apply to your problem.
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/26/220873.aspx
EDIT
Note: Even though Raymond's post says 0 length arrays are legal in C99 they are in fact still not legal in C99. Instead of a 0 length array here you should be using a length 1 array
This is an old C hack to allow a flexible sized arrays.
In C99 standard this is not neccessary as it supports the arr[] syntax.
Your intution about "why not use an array of size 1" is spot on.
The code is doing the "C struct hack" wrong, because declarations of zero length arrays are a constraint violation. This means that a compiler can reject your hack right off the bat at compile time with a diagnostic message that stops the translation.
If we want to perpetrate a hack, we must sneak it past the compiler.
The right way to do the "C struct hack" (which is compatible with C dialects going back to 1989 ANSI C, and probably much earlier) is to use a perfectly valid array of size 1:
struct someData
{
int nData;
unsigned char byData[1];
}
Moreover, instead of sizeof struct someData, the size of the part before byData is calculated using:
offsetof(struct someData, byData);
To allocate a struct someData with space for 42 bytes in byData, we would then use:
struct someData *psd = (struct someData *) malloc(offsetof(struct someData, byData) + 42);
Note that this offsetof calculation is in fact the correct calculation even in the case of the array size being zero. You see, sizeof the whole structure can include padding. For instance, if we have something like this:
struct hack {
unsigned long ul;
char c;
char foo[0]; /* assuming our compiler accepts this nonsense */
};
The size of struct hack is quite possibly padded for alignment because of the ul member. If unsigned long is four bytes wide, then quite possibly sizeof (struct hack) is 8, whereas offsetof(struct hack, foo) is almost certainly 5. The offsetof method is the way to get the accurate size of the preceding part of the struct just before the array.
So that would be the way to refactor the code: make it conform to the classic, highly portable struct hack.
Why not use a pointer? Because a pointer occupies extra space and has to be initialized.
There are other good reasons not to use a pointer, namely that a pointer requires an address space in order to be meaningful. The struct hack is externalizeable: that is to say, there are situations in which such a layout conforms to external storage such as areas of files, packets or shared memory, in which you do not want pointers because they are not meaningful.
Several years ago, I used the struct hack in a shared memory message passing interface between kernel and user space. I didn't want pointers there, because they would have been meaningful only to the original address space of the process generating a message. The kernel part of the software had a view to the memory using its own mapping at a different address, and so everything was based on offset calculations.
It's worth pointing out IMO the best way to do the size calculation, which is used in the Raymond Chen article linked above.
struct foo
{
size_t count;
int data[1];
}
size_t foo_size_from_count(size_t count)
{
return offsetof(foo, data[count]);
}
The offset of the first entry off the end of desired allocation, is also the size of the desired allocation. IMO it's an extremely elegant way of doing the size calculation. It does not matter what the element type of the variable size array is. The offsetof (or FIELD_OFFSET or UFIELD_OFFSET in Windows) is always written the same way. No sizeof() expressions to accidentally mess up.
After reading some posts related to flexible array member, I am still not fully understand why we need such a feature.
Possible Duplicate:
Flexible array members in C - bad?
Is this a Flexible Array Struct Members in C as well?
(Blame me if I didn't solve my problem from the possible duplicate questions above)
What is the real difference between the following two implementations:
struct h1 {
size_t len;
unsigned char *data;
};
struct h2 {
size_t len;
unsigned char data[];
};
I know the size of h2 is as if the flexible array member (data) were omitted, that is, sizeof(h2) == sizeof(size_t). And I also know that the flexible array member can only appear as the last element of a structure, so the original implementation can be more flexible in the position of data.
My real problem is that why C99 add this feature? Simply because sizeof(h2) doesn't contain the real size of data? I am sure that I must miss some more important points for this feature. Please point it out for me.
The two structs in your post don't have the same structure at all. h1 has a integer and a pointer to char. h2 has an integer, and an array of characters inline (number of elements determined at runtime, possibly none).
Said differently, in h2 the character data is inside the struct. In h1 it has to be somewhere outside.
This makes a lot of difference. For instance, if you use h1 you need to take care of allocating/freeing the payload (in addition to the struct itself). With h2, only one allocation/free is necessary, everything is packaged together.
One case where using h2 might make sense is if you're communicating with something that expects messages in the form of {length,data} pairs. You allocate an instance of h2 by requesting sizeof(h2)+how many payload chars you want, fill it up, and then you can transfer the whole thing in a single write (taking care about endianess and such of course). If you had used h1, you'd need two write calls (unless you want to send the memory address of the data, which usually doesn't make any sense).
So this feature exists because it's handy. And various (sometimes non-portable) tricks where used before that to simulate this feature. Adding it to the standard makes sense.
The main reason the Committee introduced flexible array members is to implement the famous struct hack. See the below quote from the C99 Rationale, especially the part I add the emphasis.
Rationale for International Standard — Programming Languages — C §6.7.2.1 Structure and union specifiers
There is a common idiom known as the “struct hack” for creating a structure containing a variable-size array:
struct s
{
int n_items;
/* possibly other fields */
int items[1];
};
struct s *p;
size_t n, i;
/* code that sets n omitted */
p = malloc(sizeof(struct s) + (n - 1) * sizeof(int));
/* code to check for failure omitted */
p->n_items = n;
/* example usage */
for (i = 0; i < p->n_items; i++)
p->items[i] = i;
The validity of this construct has always been questionable. In the response to one Defect
Report, the Committee decided that it was undefined behavior because the array p->items
contains only one item, irrespective of whether the space exists. An alternative construct was suggested: make the array size larger than the largest possible case (for example, using int items[INT_MAX];), but this approach is also undefined for other reasons.
The Committee felt that, although there was no way to implement the “struct hack” in C89, it was nonetheless a useful facility. Therefore the new feature of “flexible array members” was introduced. Apart from the empty brackets, and the removal of the “-1” in the malloc call, this is used in the same way as the struct hack, but is now explicitly valid code.
There are a few restrictions on flexible array members that ensure that code using them makes sense. For example, there must be at least one other member, and the flexible array must occur last. Similarly, structures containing flexible arrays can't occur in other structures or in arrays. Finally, sizeof applied to the structure ignores the array but counts any padding before it. This makes the malloc call as simple as possible.
I don't know if this is considered as an important point, but GCC docs points this out:
GCC allows static initialization of flexible array members. This is equivalent to defining a new structure containing the original structure followed by an array of sufficient size to contain the data. E.g. in the following, f1 is constructed as if it were declared like f2.
struct f1 {
int x; int y[];
} f1 = { 1, { 2, 3, 4 } };
struct f2 {
struct f1 f1; int data[3];
} f2 = { { 1 }, { 2, 3, 4 } };
(taken from http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html)
Members of a structure are allocated within the structure in the order of their appearance in the declaration and have ascending addresses.
I am faced with the following dilemma: when I need to declare a structure, do I
(1) group the fields logically, or
(2) in decreasing size order, to save RAM and ROM size?
Here is an example, where the largest data member should be at the top, but also should be grouped with the logically-connected colour:
struct pixel{
int posX;
int posY;
tLargeType ColourSpaceSecretFormula;
char colourRGB[3];
}
The padding of a structure is non-deterministic (that is, is implementation-dependent), so we cannot reliably do pointer arithmetic on structure elements (and we shouldn't: imagine someone reordering the fields to his liking: BOOM, the whole code stops working).
-fpack-structs solves this in gcc, but bears other limitations, so let's leave compiler options out of the question.
On the other hand, code should be, above all, readable. Micro optimizations are to be avoided at all cost.
So, I wonder, why are structures' members ordered by the standard, making me worry about the micro-optimization of ordering struct member in a specific way?
The compiler is limited by several traditional and practical limitations.
The pointer to the struct after a cast (the standard calls it "suitably converted") will be equal to the pointer to the first element of the struct. This has often been used to implement overloading of messages in message passing. In that case a struct has the first element that describes what type and size the rest of the struct is.
The last element can be a dynamically resized array. Even before official language support this has been often used in practice. You allocate sizeof(struct) + length of extra data and can access the last element as a normal array with as many elements that you allocated.
Those two things force the compiler to have the first and last elements in the struct in the same order as they are declared.
Another practical requirement is that every compilation must order the struct members the same way. A smart compiler could make a decision that since it sees that some struct members are always accessed close to each other they could be reordered in a way that makes them end up in a cache line. This optimization is of course impossible in C because structs often define an API between different compilation units and we can't just reorder things differently on different compilations.
The best we could do given the limitations is to define some kind of packing order in the ABI to minimize alignment waste that doesn't touch the first or last element in the struct, but it would be complex, error prone and probably wouldn't buy much.
If you couldn't rely on the ordering, then it would be much harder to write low-level code which maps structures onto things like hardware registers, network packets, external file formats, pixel buffers, etc.
Also, some code use a trick where it assumes that the last member of the structure is the highest-addressed in memory to signify the start of a much larger data block (of unknown size at compile time).
Reordering fields of structures can sometime yield good gains in data size and often also in code size, especially in 64 bit memory model. Here an example to illustrate (assuming common alignment rules):
struct list {
int len;
char *string;
bool isUtf;
};
will take 12 bytes in 32 bit but 24 in 64 bit mode.
struct list {
char *string;
int len;
bool isUtf;
};
will take 12 bytes in 32 bit but only 16 in 64 bit mode.
If you have an array of these structures you gain 50% in the data but also in code size, as indexing on a power of 2 is simpler than on other sizes.
If your structure is a singleton or not frequent, there's not much point in reordering the fields. If it is used a lot, it's a point to look at.
As for the other point of your question. Why doesn't the compiler do this reordering of fields, it is because in that case, it would be difficult to implement unions of structures that use a common pattern. Like for example.
struct header {
enum type;
int len;
};
struct a {
enum type;
int len;
bool whatever1;
};
struct b {
enum type;
int len;
long whatever2;
long whatever4;
};
struct c {
enum type;
int len;
float fl;
};
union u {
struct h header;
struct a a;
struct b b;
struct c c;
};
If the compiler rearranged the fields, this construct would be much more inconvenient, as there would be no guarantee that the type and len fields were identical when accessing them via the different structs included in the union.
If I remember correctly the standard even mandates this behaviour.
OK, I hope I explain this one correctly.
I have a struct:
typedef struct _MyData
{
char Data[256];
int Index;
} MyData;
Now, I run into a problem. Most of the time MyData.Data is OK with 256, but in some cases I need to expand the amount of chars it can hold to different sizes.
I can't use a pointer.
Is there any way to resize Data at run time? How?
Code is appreciated.
EDIT 1:
While I am very thankful for all the comments, the "maybe try this..." or "do that", or "what you are dong is wrong..." comments are not helping. Code is the help here. Please, if you know the answer post the code.
Please note that:
I cannot use pointers. Please don't try to figure out why, I just can't.
The struct is being injected into another program's memory that's why no pointers can be used.
Sorry for being a bit rough here but I asked the question here because I already tried all the different approaches that thought might work.
Again, I am looking for code. At this point I am not interested in "might work..." or " have you considered this..."
Thank you and my apologies again.
EDIT 2
Why was this set as answered?
You can use a flexible array member
typedef struct _MyData
{
int Index;
char Data[];
} MyData;
So that you can then allocate the right amount of space
MyData *d = malloc(sizeof *d + sizeof(char[100]));
d->Data[0..99] = ...;
Later, you can free, and allocate another chunk of memory and make a pointer to MyData point to it, at which time you will have more / less elements in the flexible array member (realloc). Note that you will have to save the length somewhere, too.
In Pre-C99 times, there isn't a flexible array member: char Data[] is simply regarded as an array with incomplete type, and the compiler would moan about that. Here i recommend you two possible ways out there
Using a pointer: char *Data and make it point to the allocated memory. This won't be as convenient as using the embedded array, because you will possibly need to have two allocations: One for the struct, and one for the memory pointed to by the pointer. You can also have the struct allocated on the stack instead, if the situation in your program allows this.
Using a char Data[1] instead, but treat it as if it were bigger, so that it overlays the whole allocated object. This is formally undefined behavior, but is a common technique, so it's probably safe to use with your compiler.
The problem here is your statement "I can't use a pointer". You will have to, and it will make everything much easier. Hey, realloc even copies your existing data, what do you want more?
So why do you think you can't use a pointer? Better try to fix that.
You would re-arrange the structure like that
typedef struct _MyData
{
int Index;
char Data[256];
} MyData;
And allocate instances with malloc/realloc like that:
my_data = (MyData*) malloc ( sizeof(MyData) + extra_space_needed );
This is an ugly approach and I would not recommend it (I would use pointers), but is an answer to your question how to do it without a pointer.
A limitation is that it allows for only one variable size member per struct, and has to be at the end.
Let me sum up two important points I see in this thread:
The structure is used to interact between two programs through some IPC mechanism
The destination program cannot be changed
You cannot therefore change that structure in any way, because the destination program is stuck trying to read it as currently defined. I'm afraid you are stuck.
You can try to find ways to get the equivalent behavior, or find some evil hack to force the destination program to read a new structure (e.g., modifying the binary offsets in the executable). That's all pretty application specific so I can't give much better guidance than that.
You might consider writing a third program to act as an interface between the two. It can take the "long" messages and do something with them, and pass the "short" messages onward to the old program. You can inject that in between the IPC mechanisms fairly easily.
You may be able to do this like this, without allocating a pointer for the array:
typedef struct _MyData
{
int Index;
char Data[1];
} MyData;
Later, you allocate like this:
int bcount = 256;
MyData *foo;
foo = (MyData *)malloc(sizeof(*foo) + bcount);
realloc:
int newbcount = 512;
MyData *resized_foo;
resized_foo = realloc((void *)foo, sizeof(*foo) + newbcount);
It looks like from what you're saying that you definitely have to keep MyData as a static block of data. In which case I think the only option open to you is to somehow (optionally) chain these data structures together in a way that can be re-assembled be the other process.
You'd need and additional member in MyData, eg.
typedef struct _MyData
{
int Sequence;
char Data[256];
int Index;
} MyData;
Where Sequence identifies the descending sequence in which to re-assemble the data (a sequence number of zero would indicate the final data buffer).
The problem is in the way you're putting the question. Don't think about C semantics: instead, think like a hacker. Explain exactly how you are currently getting your data into the other process at the right time, and also how the other program knows where the data begins and ends. Is the other program expecting a null-terminated string? If you declare your struct with a char[300] does the other program crash?
You see, when you say "passing data" to the other program, you might be [a] tricking the other process into copying what you put in front of it, [b] tricking the other program into letting you overwrite its normally 'private' memory, or [c] some other approach. No matter which is the case, if the other program can take your larger data, there is a way to get it to them.
I find KIV's trick quite usable. Though, I would suggest investigating the pointer issue first.
If you look at the malloc implementations
(check this IBM article, Listing 5: Pseudo-code for the main allocator),
When you allocate, the memory manager allocates a control header and
then free space following it based on your requested size.
This is very much like saying,
typedef struct _MyData
{
int size;
char Data[1]; // we are going to break the array-bound up-to size length
} MyData;
Now, your problem is,
How do you pass such a (mis-sized?) structure to this other process?
That brings us the the question,
How does the other process figure out the size of this data?
I would expect a length field as part of the communication.
If you have all that, whats wrong with passing a pointer to the other process?
Will the other process identify the difference between a pointer to a
structure and that to a allocated memory?
You cant reacolate manualy.
You can do some tricks wich i was uning when i was working aon simple data holding sistem. (very simple filesystem).
typedef struct
{
int index ;
char x[250];
} data_ztorage_250_char;
typedef struct
{
int index;
char x[1000];
} data_ztorage_1000_char;
int main(void)
{
char just_raw_data[sizeof(data_ztorage_1000_char)];
data_ztorage_1000_char* big_struct;
data_ztorage_250_char* small_struct;
big_struct = (data_ztorage_1000_char*)big_struct; //now you have bigg struct
// notice that upper line is same as writing
// big_struct = (data_ztorage_1000_char*)(&just_raw_data[0]);
small_struct = (data_ztorage_250_char*)just_raw_data;//now you have small struct
//both structs starts at same locations and they share same memory
//addresing data is
small_struct -> index = 250;
}
You don't state what the Index value is for.
As I understand it you are passing data to another program using the structure shown.
Is there a reason why you can't break your data to send into chunks of 256bytes and then set the index value accordingly? e.g.
Data is 512 bytes so you send one struct with the first 256 bytes and index=0, then another with the next 256 bytes in your array and Index=1.
How about a really, really simple solution? Could you do:
typedef struct _MyData
{
char Data[1024];
int Index;
} MyData;
I have a feeling I know your response will be "No, because the other program I don't have control over expects 256 bytes"... And if that is indeed your answer to my answer, then my answer becomes: this is impossible.
I have a linked list, which stores groups of settings for my application:
typedef struct settings {
struct settings* next;
char* name;
char* title;
char* desc;
char* bkfolder;
char* srclist;
char* arcall;
char* incfold;
} settings_row;
settings_row* first_profile = { 0 };
#define SETTINGS_PER_ROW 7
When I load values into this structure, I don't want to have to name all the elements. I would rather treat it like a named array -- the values are loaded in order from a file and placed incrementally into the struct. Then, when I need to use the values, I access them by name.
//putting values incrementally into the struct
void read_settings_file(settings_row* settings){
char* field = settings + sizeof(void*);
int i = 0;
while(read_value_into(field[i]) && i++ < SETTINGS_PER_ROW);
}
//accessing components by name
void settings_info(settings_row* settings){
printf("Settings 'profile': %s\n", settings.title);
printf("Description: %s\n", settings.desc);
printf("Folder to backup to: %s\n", settings.bkfolder);
}
But I wonder, since these are all pointers (and there will only ever be pointers in this struct), will the compiler add padding to any of these values? Are they guaranteed to be in this order, and have nothing between the values? Will my approach work sometimes, but fail intermittently?
edit for clarification
I realize that the compiler can pad any values of a struct--but given the nature of the struct (a struct of pointers) I thought this might not be a problem. Since the most efficient way for a 32 bit processor to address data is in 32 bit chunks, this is how the compiler pads values in a struct (ie. an int, short, int in a struct will add 2 bytes of padding after the short, to make it into a 32 bit chunk, and align the next int to the next 32 bit chunk). But since a 32 bit processor uses 32 bit addresses (and a 64 bit processor uses 64 bit addresses (I think)), would padding be totally unnecessary since all of the values of the struct (addresses, which are efficient by their very nature) are in ideal 32 bit chunks?
I am hoping some memory-representation / compiler-behavior guru can come shed some light on whether a compiler would ever have a reason to pad these values
Under POSIX rules, all pointers (both function pointers and data pointers) are all required to be the same size; under just ISO C, all data pointers are convertible to 'void *' and back without loss of information (but function pointers need not be convertible to 'void *' without loss of information, nor vice versa).
Therefore, if written correctly, your code would work. It isn't written quite correctly, though! Consider:
void read_settings_file(settings_row* settings)
{
char* field = settings + sizeof(void*);
int i = 0;
while(read_value_into(field[i]) && i++ < SETTINGS_PER_ROW)
;
}
Let's assume you're using a 32-bit machine with 8-bit characters; the argument is not all that significantly different if you're using 64-bit machines. The assignment to 'field' is all wrong, because settings + 4 is a pointer to the 5th element (counting from 0) of an array of 'settings_row' structures. What you need to write is:
void read_settings_file(settings_row* settings)
{
char* field = (char *)settings + sizeof(void*);
int i = 0;
while(read_value_into(field[i]) && i++ < SETTINGS_PER_ROW)
;
}
The cast before addition is crucial!
C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999):
6.3.2.3 Pointers
A pointer to void may be converted to or from a pointer to any incomplete or object
type. A pointer to any incomplete or object type may be converted to a pointer to void
and back again; the result shall compare equal to the original pointer.
[...]
A pointer to a function of one type may be converted to a pointer to a function of another
type and back again; the result shall compare equal to the original pointer. If a converted
pointer is used to call a function whose type is not compatible with the pointed-to type,
the behavior is undefined.
In many cases pointers are natural word sizes, so the compiler is unlikely to pad each member, but that doesn't make it a good idea. If you want to treat it like an array you should use an array.
I'm thinking out loud here so there's probably many mistakes but perhaps you could try this approach:
enum
{
kName = 0,
kTitle,
kDesc,
kBkFolder,
kSrcList,
kArcAll,
kIncFold,
kSettingsCount
};
typedef struct settings {
struct settings* next;
char *settingsdata[kSettingsCount];
} settings_row;
Set the data:
settings_row myRow;
myRow.settingsData[kName] = "Bob";
myRow.settingsData[kDescription] = "Hurrrrr";
...
Reading the data:
void read_settings_file(settings_row* settings){
char** field = settings->settingsData;
int i = 0;
while(read_value_into(field[i]) && i++ < SETTINGS_PER_ROW);
}
It's not guaranteed by the C standard. I've a sneaking suspicion, that I don't have time to check right now either way, that it guarantees no padding between the char* fields, i.e. that consecutive fields of the same type in a struct are guaranteed to be layout-compatible with an array of that type. But even if so, you're on your own between the settings* and the first char*, and also between the last char* and the end of the struct. But you could use offsetof to deal with the first issue, and I don't think the second affects your current code.
However, what you want is almost certainly guaranteed by your compiler, which somewhere in its documentation will set out its rules for struct layout, and will almost certainly say that all pointers to data are word sized, and that a struct can be the size of 8 words without additional padding. But if you want to write highly portable code, you have to use only the guarantees in the standard.
The order of fields is guaranteed. I also don't think you'll see intermittent failure - AFAIK the offset of each field in that struct will be consistent for a given implementation (meaning the combination of compiler and platform).
You could assert that sizeof(settings*) == sizeof(char*) and sizeof(settings_row) == sizeof(char*)*8. If both those hold, there is no room for any padding in the struct, since fields are not allowed to "overlap". If you ever hit a platform where they don't hold, you'll find out.
Even so, if you want an array, I'd be inclined to say use an array, with inline accessor functions or macros to get the individual fields. Whether your trick works or not, it's even easier not to think about it at all.
Although not a duplicate, this probably answers your question:
Why isn't sizeof for a struct equal to the sum of sizeof of each member?
It's not uncommon for applications to write an entire struct into a file and read it back out again. But this suffers from the possibility that one day the file will need to be read back on another platform, or by another version of the compiler that packs the struct differently. (Although this can be dealt with by specially-written code that understands the original packing format).
Technically, you can rely only on the order; the compiler could insert padding. If different pointers were of different size, or if the pointer size wasn't a natural word size, it might insert padding.
Practically speaking, you could get away with it. I wouldn't recommend it; it's a bad, dirty trick.
You could achieve your goal with another level of indirection (what doesn't that solve?), or by using a temporary array initialized to point to the various members of the structure.
It's not guaranteed, but it will work fine in most cases. It won't be intermittent, it will either work or not work on a particular platform with a particular build. Since you're using all pointers, most compilers won't mess with any padding.
Also, if you wanted to be safer, you could make it a union.
You can't do that the way you are trying. The compiler is allowed to pad any and all members of the struct. I do not believe it is allowed to reorder the fields.
Most compilers have an attribute that can be applied to the struct to pack it (ie to turn it into a collection of tightly packed storage with no padding), but the downside is that this generally affects performance. The packed flag will probably allow you to use the struct the way you want, but it may not be portable across various platforms.
Padding is designed to make field access as efficient as possible on the target architecture. It's best not to fight it unless you have to (ie, the struct goes to a disk or over a network.)
It seems to me that this approach creates more problems than it solves.
When you read this code six months from now, will you still be aware of all the subtleties of how the compiler pads a struct?
Would someone else, who didn't write the code?
If you must use the struct, use it in the canonical way and just write a function which
assigns values to each field separately.
You could also use an array and create macros to give field names to indices.
If you get too "clever" about optimizing your code, you will end up with slower code anyway, since the compiler won't be able to optimize it as well.