msebor added a comment. In D126864#3616524 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126864#3616524>, @serge-sans-paille wrote:
> GCC and Clang don't have the same behavior wrt. macros-as-abound and > standard-layout-requirement, see https://godbolt.org/z/3vc4TcTYz > I'm fine with keeping the CLang behavior, but do we want to keep it only for > level=0, and drop it for higher level (this would look odd to me). If you're referring to the warning, GCC needs `-O2` to issue most instances of `-Warray-bounds`. The warning also treats one-element trailing arrays as flexible array members, so it's intentionally silent about the test case. GCC should update the warning to reflect the `-fstrict-flex-arrays=N` level. (Macros are long expanded by the time the code reaches the middle end so they don't come into play, except perhaps when they come from system headers.) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126864/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126864 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
