On 3/10/20 5:20 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 3/10/20 6:13 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/20 5:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> My point is that it adds what seems like unnecessary churn, which is not
> a benefit, and it doesn't improve the generated code.
>
As an example of one of the benefits of this is that the compiler won't trigger
a warning in the following case:
struct boo {
int stuff;
struct foo array[0];
int morestuff;
};
The result of the code above is an undefined behavior.
On the other hand in the case below, the compiles does trigger a warning:
struct boo {
int stuff;
struct foo array[];
int morestuff;
};
See: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=76497732932f15e7323dc805e8ea8dc11bb587cf
Thanks
--
Gustavo
