Okay, I am fine with this. Richard and Kees, what’s your opinion on this?
thanks. Qing > On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote: > >>>> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member >>>> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together, >>> >>> That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning >>> for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use >>> -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular >>> -fstrict-flex-array modes there. >> >> So, you mean, >> >> 1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member; >> 2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning; >> >> ? > > Yes. > >> Then, how about: >> >> -std=c89: >> >> 1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array >> member; >> 2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too. >> >> ? > > Yes. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com