On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for bringing this up again, but this could work:
>
> void foo(int x, int (*s)[x])
> {
> (*s)[x] = 1; // <- undefined behaviour
Yes, I believe that's undefined (even if the array is part of a larger
object, as the same principle as
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > If you declare the size as [static sz] then
> > that means it points to an array of at least that size, but it could be
> > larger.
>
> GCC does not seem to enforce that. This compiles without errors:
[static] is about optimization (but GCC doesn't
On 09/03/2014 05:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/02/2014 11:22 PM, James Nelson wrote:
This is error-prone because even though a size parameter is given, the code
in the function has no requirement to enforce it. With a bounded array
type, the pro
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 11:22 PM, James Nelson wrote:
>
> > This is error-prone because even though a size parameter is given, the code
> > in the function has no requirement to enforce it. With a bounded array
> > type, the prototype looks like this:
> >
> > bu
On 09/02/2014 11:22 PM, James Nelson wrote:
This is error-prone because even though a size parameter is given, the code
in the function has no requirement to enforce it. With a bounded array
type, the prototype looks like this:
buf *foo(char buf[sz], size_t sz);
GCC already has a syntax exten
