https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1be51a3a9ac3409561223c8058d4943f9b574d15
commit r11-3828-g1be51a3a9ac3409561223c8058d4943f9b574d15
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The decision to use null for the upper bound can be traced to this message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2015-December/437361.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Just a correction to the comment:
+ /* Zero-length arrays have a null upper bound in C++ and
+SIZE_MAX in C. */
It's actually the other way around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Target Milestone|---