On 03/01/2016 10:20 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 03/01/2016 12:27 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> We >> should implement compiler support for this wart: inhibit optimizations >> (I think there are already special cases for length-0 and length-1 >> arrays at the end, so it's not totally without precedent), and warn >> about sizeof (struct dirent) and using it as a (non-pointer) declarator. > > Why not use a flexible array member for this? For which part, and how exactly? You can't put a flexible array member into a transparent union. > Sure, that assumes C99, > but flexible array members are pretty much universally supported now > (and we can fall back on the current layout for pre-C99 compilers). This > would work better with modern compilers that treat small arrays with > more respect than traditional C compilers did. And as I understand > things, it would conform to POSIX (and if I'm wrong, POSIX should get > fixed....). If you mean to add some zero-width padding member at the end of the struct, after the d_name member, then I'm worried that makes overrunning the d_name array member even more undefined than it already is. :) > For what it's worth, portable code cannot copy struct dirent values > anyway, as this loses file names in operating systems like Solaris where > d_name has size 1. Interesting. I feel slightly better now about having this overrunning d_name member. Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
