> On Apr 23, 2024, at 14:04, Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
>> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
>
> "trailing padding" is more a concept for structures than for unions (where
> padding depends on which union member is active). But I suppose it's
> still true that the union can be larger than without the flexible member,
> because of alignment considerations.
>
> union u { char c; int a[]; };
>
> needs to be sufficiently aligned for int, which means the size is a
> multiple of the size of int, whereas if the flexible array member weren't
> present, the size could be 1 byte.
Yes, that’s exact what I tried to include in the documentation part -:)
And I have a testing case for this in the patch.
However, I am not very confident on the wording of the doc, is the current
wording good enough for this?
Or do you have any suggestion on how to make it better?
Thanks a lot!
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> josmy...@redhat.com
>
