On 3/10/20 5:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > 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. > Yeah. But, unfortunately, I'm not a compiler guy, so I'm not able to fix the compiler as you suggest. And I honestly don't see what is so annoying/disturbing about applying a patch that removes the 0 from foo[0] when it brings benefit to the whole codebase. Thanks -- Gustavo
