serge-sans-paille added a comment. In D134902#3848246 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134902#3848246>, @void wrote:
> @rsmith, @serge-sans-paille, and @kees, I need some advice. There's a test in > `clang/test/CodeGen/bounds-checking.c` that's checking bounds stuff on > unions. The behavior is...weird to me. It says that an array of 0 or 1 is a > FAM, but one larger is not (see below). That seems counter to how structs are > handled. If this is true, then the check in `clang/lib/AST/Expr.cpp` also > needs to be updated... I second the opinion here. C99 says nothing about flexible array member for unions, that's already a "language extension". (and so not be considered as FAM by `-fstrict-flex-arrays=3`) Both GCC and Clang implement that extension for array of size 0 and 1, see https://godbolt.org/z/1xYMYq75s. We may want to harmonize with struct behavior (for consistency etc) but I'd advocate to so in a separate patch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134902/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134902 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
