Unbreak build on x86

[jbeich]

Fixes #34

[wwylele]

Do you know where the layout difference come from? If it is a missing/extra padding in between some members, adding padding field at the end is incorrect; if it is just size difference due to not respecting u64 8-byte alignment, alignas(8) might be a better way to go.

[wwylele]

Closing due to inactivity

[jbeich]

I confirm, adding alignas(8) helps. Can you reopen or cherry-pick 5862fd000353?

[wwylele]

Github doesn't allow me to reopen this. Please open a new PR and let CI check stuff because I currently don't have the dev environment set up.

[wwylele]

Also adding alignas(8) on the top level struct isn't always correct either. It ensures the correct total size, but doesn't ensure the inner layout (for example all fields after a u64 field might be offset by 4 bytes). It should be added to all u64-type fields. A simple example:

struct { u32 a; u64 b; u32 c; u32 d;}

This struct on x64 would be layout as

| a: 4 bytes | padding: 4 bytes | b: 8 bytes | c: 4 bytes | d: 4 bytes |

which is 24 bytes in total.

On x86 where u64 alignment is 4-byte, it would be layout as

| a: 4 bytes | b: 8 bytes | c: 4 bytes | d: 4 bytes |

which is 20 bytes in total.

Adding alignas(8) on the top level (alignas(8) struct { u32 a; u64 b; u32 c; u32 d;}):

| a: 4 bytes | b: 8 bytes | c: 4 bytes | d: 4 bytes | padding: 4 bytes |

which is 24 bytes in total, but has a different layout from the x64 one (notice the different position of the padding)

Adding alignas(8) on the field (struct { u32 a; alignas(8) u64 b; u32 c; u32 d;}):

| a: 4 bytes | padding: 4 bytes | b: 8 bytes | c: 4 bytes | d: 4 bytes |

This produce the same layout as the x64 one