On 3/10/20 5:52 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > On 3/10/20 8:56 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> + jes >> >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> I wrote in a confusing way, my question above was about the actual patch >>>> and not the the title. For example, Jes didn't like this style change: >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11402315/ >>>> >>> >>> It doesn't seem that that comment adds a lot to the conversation. The only >>> thing that it says is literally "fix the compiler". By the way, more than >>> a hundred patches have already been applied to linux-next[1] and he seems >>> to be the only person that has commented such a thing. >> >> But I also asked who prefers this format in that thread, you should not >> ignore questions from two maintainers (me and Jes). >> > > I'm sorry. I thought the changelog text had already the proper information. > In the changelog text I'm quoting the GCC documentation below: > > "The preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types like struct line > above is the ISO C99 flexible array member..." [1] > > I'm also including a link to the following KSPP open issue: > > https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 > > The issue above mentions the following: > > "Both cases (0-byte and 1-byte arrays) pose confusion for things like sizeof(), > CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE." > > sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array members have > incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in which the sizeof operator > is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. > Such instances may be hiding some bugs. So, the idea is also to get completely rid > of those sorts of issues. As I stated in my previous answer, this seems more code churn than an actual fix. If this is a real problem, shouldn't the work be put into fixing the compiler to handle foo[0] instead? It seems that is where the real value would be. Thanks, Jes
