From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B75C43858C39; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 02:11:00 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B75C43858C39 From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 02:11:00 +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: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed bug_status cc 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: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 02:11:00 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101836 Martin Sebor changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2021-10-13 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org, | |siddhesh at redhat dot com --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not sure how feasible it is to change __builtin_object_size or to add an option to control this behavior but I agree that treating all trailing arra= ys as flexible array members is overly permissive and unhelpful (GCC warnings = like -Warray-bounds are stricter and treat only zero and one-element arrays that way). Let me confirm this request and CC Siddhesh who just submitted a pat= ch for __builtin_dynamic_object_size. Maybe that's a way toward something stricter.=