> On Apr 23, 2024, at 15:03, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> However, I am not very confident on the wording of the doc, is the
>> current wording good enough for this? Or do you have any suggestion on
>> how to make it better?
>
> I'm not convinced the
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
> However, I am not very confident on the wording of the doc, is the
> current wording good enough for this? Or do you have any suggestion on
> how to make it better?
I'm not convinced the statement about size (in relation to a structure
with the member
> On Apr 23, 2024, at 14:04, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
>> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
>
> "trailing padding" is more a concept
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
"trailing padding" is more a concept for structures than for unions (where
padding depends on which
> On Apr 19, 2024, at 16:54, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> Qing Zhao writes:
>
>> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
>> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
>> +
>> +If all the members of a union are flexiable array
> Qing Zhao writes:
> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
> +
> +If all the members of a union are flexiable array member, the size of
There's a couple of spots that say
for allow flexible array members in unions and alone in structures [PR53548]
The request for GCC to accept that the C99 flexible array member can be
in a union or alone in a structure has been made a long time ago around 2012
for supporting several practical cases including glibc.
A GCC PR has
