From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E651C385700A; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:30:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E651C385700A From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/100124] Why is "flexible array member '...' in an otherwise empty '...'" an issue? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:30:55 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:30:56 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100124 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Behdad Esfahbod from comment #6) > > But I will note GCC treats (all) arrays at the end of a POD struct as a > > flexible one so the question I have is more about the ubsan issue you a= re > > running into, is that with GCC or with clang/LLVM? >=20 > The ubsan issue reported to us is with gcc: > https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/issues/2953#issuecomment-823460893 Can you report that as a bug as GCC's rule is treat all arrays that end a P= OD as a flexiable array? Please include the full preprocessed source that produces the problem at runtime and the specific version of GCC that is use= d.=20 This is a GCC bug in mind due to this unless there is another field missing that is in the source that you are not showing.=