Re: [libiberty][PATCH] Avoid zero-length VLAs.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brooks Moses wrote: >> Ping? > > This is fine, but please add a comment explaining why the code avoids > 0-length VLAs. Thanks. Thanks! Committed as r238233. This

Re: [libiberty][PATCH] Avoid zero-length VLAs.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brooks Moses wrote: > Ping? This is fine, but please add a comment explaining why the code avoids 0-length VLAs. Thanks. Ian > (I suspect I should have added a libiberty maintainer to cc in the first > place.) > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at

Re: [libiberty][PATCH] Avoid zero-length VLAs.

Ping? (I suspect I should have added a libiberty maintainer to cc in the first place.) On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Brooks Moses wrote: > Zero-length variable-length-arrays are not allowed in standard C99, > and perhaps more importantly, they cause ASAN to complain.

[libiberty][PATCH] Avoid zero-length VLAs.

Zero-length variable-length-arrays are not allowed in standard C99, and perhaps more importantly, they cause ASAN to complain. (See, e.g., https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00917.html.) With this patch, the libiberty tests, including demangler-fuzzer, are ASAN-clean. - Brooks