On 03/02/2016 06:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > +/* Declare a structure member named ID, with type "array of TYPE", and > + with actual size unspecified but with nominal size SIZE for the > + benefit of traditional applications. If the application is > + compiled with _FLEXARRAY_SOURCE and if the compiler is C99 or > + better, model this as a flexible array. Otherwise, model it as a > + fixed-size array of size SIZE (followed by a flexible array > + afterwards, if C99, for the benefit of source-code analyzers that > + can use this as a cue that the array is really varying-size). The > + fixed-size array is for compatibility with programs that unwisely > + take the size of structures that contain flexible arrays, and which > + rely on traditional glibc which uses fixed-size arrays. */ > +#ifndef __flexarray > +# ifdef __USE_FLEXARRAY > +# define __flexarray(id, type, size) type id[] > +# else > +# define __flexarray(id, type, size) type id[size]; type __flexarray __flexarr > +# endif > +#endif Sorry, I'm not convinced this is good compiler hint. I suspect it moves things in the opposite direction. Some compilers likely have hacks to support arrays of length 1 as flexible arrays if the array is at the end of a struct, and after your change, the member is no longer at the end, potentially disabling the flexible array kludge. I think we should interact better with compilers in this area, but this needs fairly explicit mark-up, showing what we need, and not something that requires the compiler to guess. Thanks, 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
