On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 08:48:23PM +0900, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/stddef.h b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > index dab49e2ec8c0..8ca9df87a523 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/stddef.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ enum {
> > union {
> > \
> > TYPE NAME;
> > \
> > struct {
> > \
> > - unsigned char __offset_to_##FAM[offsetof(TYPE, FAM)];
> > \
> > + unsigned char __offset_to_##FAM[sizeof(TYPE)];
> > \
> > MEMBERS
> > \
> > };
> > \
> > }
> >
> > which only leaves one usage of FAM in the name of the padding struct
> > member. I'm sure someone is able to come up with something nice here to
> > get rid of FAM completely or point out what I'm missing.
>
> Flexible structures (structs that contain a FAM) may have trailing padding.
> Under that scenario sizeof(TYPE) causes the overlay between FAM and MEMBERS
> to be misaligned.
That sounds wrong to me; are you sure? In that case allocating space for
such a struct using
struct mystruct {
unsigned short len;
unsigned int array[];
};
s = malloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) + n * sizeof(unsigned int));
wouldn't do the right thing.
I found in the net (e.g.
https://rgambord.github.io/c99-doc/sections/6/7/2/1/index.html):
In most situations, the flexible array member is ignored. In
particular, the size of the structure is as if the flexible
array member were omitted except that it may have more trailing
padding than the omission would imply.
So I'd claim that sizeof does work here as intended.
gcc here also behaves fine:
uwe@taurus:~$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>
struct mystruct {
unsigned short len;
unsigned int array[];
};
struct mystruct2 {
unsigned short len;
};
int main()
{
printf("sizeof(struct mystruct) = %zu\n", sizeof(struct
mystruct));
printf("sizeof(struct mystruct2) = %zu\n", sizeof(struct
mystruct2));
return 0;
}
uwe@taurus:~$ make test
cc -c -o test.o test.c
cc test.o -o test
uwe@taurus:~$ ./test
sizeof(struct mystruct) = 4
sizeof(struct mystruct2) = 2
Best regards
Uwe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
