On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:13 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > 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. As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually make a difference as all the compilers produce the same object code with either form. There may be some compiler warning by clang through. Does any version of gcc produce a warning on struct foo { ... type bar[0]; }; but not struct foo { ... type bar[]; };
