https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98541
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed| |2021-01-06
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Both the warning in the VLA case and its absence in the ordinary case are by
design.
The VLA case gets a warning because it seems suspicious to specify a nonzero
number of elements for an array and then null as the array (the VLA parameter
can be null when the bound is zero). But I didn't consider the shared bound
use case so I suppose the warning could be relaxed to accommodate it, and
either changed to rely on the [static] for the bound as you suggest or on the
VLA parameter declared with attribute nonnull. I can't think of a use case
where the bound isn't shared and where setting it to nonzero and passing a null
pointer would not be a bug.
My rationale for not issuing a warning for ordinary arrays with constant bounds
is that those are commonly treated as "optional," and so there relying on some
additional notation ([static] or nonnull) seems appropriate and necessary to
prevent this use case.
