On 3/10/20 5:34 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 3/10/20 6:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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;
>> };
>
> Right, this just underlines my prior argument, that this should be fixed
> in the compiler.
>
In the meantime it's not at all harmful to do something about it in the codebase.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
