On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > cc -Wall -g -I/usr/local/include/db4 -c reply.c
> > reply.c: In function 'create_anyreply':
> > reply.c:2975: warning: array size (2) smaller than bound length (4)
> > reply.c:2975: warning: array size (2) smaller than bound length (4)
> > cc -Wall -g -I/usr/local/include/db4 -c additional.c
<some cut>
>
> 2553 struct answer {
> 2554 u_int16_t type; /* 0 */
> 2555 u_int16_t class; /* 2 */
> 2556 u_int32_t ttl; /* 4 */
> 2557 u_int16_t rdlength; /* 8 */
> 2558 char rdata[0]; /* 10 */
> 2559 } __packed;
>
> Since rdate is an array, there's at least a redundant &.
>
> Zero sized arrays are actually not legal and a gnu extension. With
> ANDSI C, use [1] but note it changes the size of the struct), and with
> C99 use [].
>
> -Otto
When I changed it to "char rdata[4];" on line 2558 like you pointed me to
the message disappeared. Now correct me if I'm wrong, __packed or
__attribute__((packed)) which I throw out due to some code example eons ago,
should have packed the struct below a 2 byte boundary or something. Is this
functionality gone now? Because when I do rdata[4], the size of the struct
should be 14 bytes which lies on a 2 bytes boundary. Thankfully my code is
forgiving on an rdata[4]. At least at first sight.
Thank you for solving my problem! (Thanks to Christiano too!)
-peter
