On 08/07/2018 05:31 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
2) skipping embedded nuls made it possible to create a string
with fewer elements than the initializer array, which caused
arrays with unspecified bound to be smaller than they would
have been otherwise
I think there should be explicit tests of sizeof for arrays with
unspecified bound - to make sure both that it isn't any smaller than it
should be, but also that any NULs implicitly added for a STRING_CST don't
make the arrays any larger than their size should be for the originally
given initializer that doesn't have a 0 as the last element.
I added some more tests to the latest revision of the patch.
Please see it in my other response.
Thanks
Martin
