Hi, Stefan - is this our famous 64-bit misalignement? Where we have each alternating bank aligned and misaligned at 64 bits? Without changing the data
format, one can always store data in 64-bit aligned banks by inserting a dummy banks between real banks:

event header
bank header
bank1 --- 64-bit aligned --- with data
bank2 --- misaligned, no data
bank3 --- 64-bit aligned --- with data
bank4 --- misaligned, no data
...

for sure, wastes space for bank2, bank4, etc, but at 12 bytes per bank, maybe this is negligible overhead compared to total event size.

BTW, aligned-to-64-bit is old news. The the PWB FPGA, I have 128-bit data paths to DDR RAM, the data has to be aligned to 128 bits, or else!

K.O.



> Actually the cause of all of the is a real bug in the midas functions. We want each bank 8-byte aligned, so there is code in bk_close like:
> 
> midas.cxx:14788:
>      ((BANK_HEADER *) event)->data_size += sizeof(BANK32) + ALIGN8(pbk32->data_size);
> 
> While the old sizeof(BANK)=8, the extended sizeof(BANK32)=12, so not 8-byte aligned. This code should rather be:
> 
>      ((BANK_HEADER *) event)->data_size += ALIGN8(sizeof(BANK32) +pbk32->data_size);
> 
> But if we change that, it would break every midas data file on this planet!
> 
> The only chance I see is to use the "flags" in the BANK_HEADER to distinguish a current bank from a "correct" bank. 
> So we could introduce a flag BANK_FORMAT_ALIGNED which distinguishes between the two pieces of code above. 
> Then bk_iterate32 would look at that flag and do the right thing.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Best,
> Stefan