Noted; thanks for the correction. :)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits <
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:21:33PM -0700, George Burgess IV wrote:
> > I'm entirely unfamiliar with struct-path-tbaa, so Hal, do you see a
> > why struct-path-tbaa wouldn't play nicely with flexible arrays at the end
> > of types? Glancing at it, I don't think it should cause problems, but a
> > more authoritative answer would really be appreciated. :) If it might
> > issues now or in the future, I'm happy to be conservative here if
> > -fno-strict-path-tbaa is given, too.
> Please don't call them flexible types. That's a misname. The standard
> provides a clear mechanism for arrays with statically undefined size --
> which is providing no size at all. We do provide the same support for
> array size of 1 for legacy compat. Any other size is basically abuse.
> cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits mailing list