Home/ Questions/Q 184171
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-11T15:14:43+00:00

If you have the following class as a network packet payload: class Payload {

  • 0

If you have the following class as a network packet payload:

class Payload { char field0; int field1; char field2; int field3; };

Does using a class like Payload leave the recipient of the data susceptible to alignment issues when receiving the data over a socket? I would think that the class would either need to be reordered or add padding to ensure alignment.

Either reorder:

class Payload {     int  field1;     int  field3;     char field0;     char field2; };

or add padding:

class Payload {     char  field0;     char  pad[3];     int   field1;     char  field2;     char  pad[3];     int   field3;  };

If reordering doesn’t make sense for some reason, I would think adding the padding would be preferred since it would avoid alignment issues even though it would increase the size of the class.

What is your experience with such alignment issues in network data?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. You should look into Google protocol buffers, or Boost::serialize like another poster said.

    If you want to roll your own, please do it right.

    If you use types from stdint.h (ie: uint32_t, int8_t, etc.), and make sure every variable has ‘native alignment’ (meaning its address is divisible evenly by its size (int8_ts are anywhere, uint16_ts are on even addresses, uint32_ts are on addresses divisble by 4), you won’t have to worry about alignment or packing.

    At a previous job we had all structures sent over our databus (ethernet or CANbus or byteflight or serial ports) defined in XML. There was a parser that would validate alignment on the variables within the structures (alerting you if someone wrote bad XML), and then generate header files for various platforms and languages to send and receive the structures. This worked really well for us, we never had to worry about hand-writing code to do message parsing or packing, and it was guaranteed that all platforms wouldn’t have stupid little coding errors. Some of our datalink layers were pretty bandwidth constrained, so we implemented things like bitfields, with the parser generating the proper code for each platform. We also had enumerations, which was very nice (you’d be surprised how easy it is for a human to screw up coding bitfields on enumerations by hand).

    Unless you need to worry about it running on 8051s and HC11s with C, or over data link layers that are very bandwidth constrained, you are not going to come up with something better than protocol buffers, you’ll just spend a lot of time trying to be on par with them.

    • 0