Noted; thanks for the correction. :) On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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 > reason > > 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 > cause > > 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. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
