On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:14 PM Kees Cook via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:53:52PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 May 2023, Kees Cook via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 06:29:10PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > On 5/11/23 18:07, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Would you allow flexible array members in unions? Is there any
> > > > > strong reason to disallow them?
> > >
> > > Yes please!! And alone in a struct, too.
> > >
> > > AFAICT, there is no mechanical/architectural reason to disallow them
> > > (especially since they _can_ be constructed with some fancy tricks,
> > > and they behave as expected.) My understanding is that it's disallowed
> > > due to an overly strict reading of the very terse language that created
> > > flexible arrays in C99.
> >
> > Standard C has no such thing as a zero-size object or type, which would
> > lead to problems with a struct or union that only contains a flexible
> > array member there.
>
> Ah-ha, okay. That root cause makes sense now.
Hmm. but then the workaround
struct X {
int n;
union u {
char at_least_size_one;
int iarr[];
short sarr[];
};
};
doesn't work either. We could make that a GNU extension without
adverse effects?
Richard.
> Why are zero-sized objects missing in Standard C? Or, perhaps, the better
> question is: what's needed to support the idea of a zero-sized object?
>
> --
> Kees Cook
