> On May 19, 2020, at 7:23 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I agree, it's bad to have this noise. But again, there is nothing > wrong with the way it's used in BPF code base. We'd gladly use > flexible array, if we could. But given we can't, I'd say the proper > solution (in order of my preference) would be: > > - don't trigger false error, if zero-sized array is the member of union; > - or have some sort of annotation at field declaration site (not a > field access site). > > Is that possible? I am not a compiler expert, but with my experience with all those compiler instrumental technology like KCSAN, KASAN and UBSAN, it seems both options you prop need to modify compilers, i.e., -fsanitize=undefined
