> On Nov 18, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 03:19:07PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Hi, Richard, >> >> Honestly, it’s very hard for me to decide what’s the best way to handle the >> interaction >> between -fstrict-flex-array=M and -Warray-bounds=N. >> >> Ideally, -fstrict-flex-array=M should completely control the behavior of >> -Warray-bounds. >> If possible, I prefer this solution. >> >> However, -Warray-bounds is included in -Wall, and has been used extensively >> for a long time. >> It’s not safe to change its default behavior. > > I prefer that -fstrict-flex-arrays controls -Warray-bounds. That > it is in -Wall is _good_ for this reason. :) No one is going to add > -fstrict-flex-arrays (at any level) without understanding what it does > and wanting those effects on -Warray-bounds.
The major difficulties to let -fstrict-flex-arrays controlling -Warray-bounds was discussed in the following threads: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604133.html Please take a look at the discussion and let me know your opinion. Thanks, Qing > > -- > Kees Cook
