> On Apr 23, 2024, at 15:03, Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I'm not convinced the statement about size (in relation to a structure
> with the member omitted) is useful for unions the way it is for
> structures. The structure with the member omitted is a relevant concept
> for thinking about a structure with a flexible array member (the flexible
> array member essentially goes after that structure); it's much less
> relevant for thinking about a union with a flexible array member.
Okay, then I will delete that statement about size.
>
> (The statement that the size is zero when all members are flexible array
> members still seems a useful one to make.)
And only keep the size is zero when all members are flexible array members.
Thanks.
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> josmy...@redhat.com
>
