From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id F1F7A3858C74; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:24:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F1F7A3858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674573852;
	bh=7s2PFdQZ8EgUGyu0hQxpAkxD81Qpsk7O1V0wNuEpWX0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Z6buqeObQrVVzRFLsfloAFHdsir/V/wPRfFAPvc5tzB9LdZI0D2LB9dRi6l5fMOhY
	 hUHcmAL9xUBO04U03VUNLVZZPOEE3XsC8X8evVTvnrUaAw/rJoKs1WcLW1SXv5Y6Th
	 f0c8gq0E35NXOgKHhGVhF83KPDrMudQJL1wrkMTI=
From: "qing.zhao at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107952] tree-object-size: inconsistent size
 for flexible arrays nested in structs
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:24:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: qing.zhao at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107952-4-iLrvehOCsg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107952-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107952-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107952

--- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao <qing.zhao at oracle dot com> ---
> --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>=20
> GCC handles for example
>=20
> struct A { char data[1]; };
> struct B { int n; struct A a; };
>=20
> as if the a.data[] array is a flex-array.

Okay. Then the maximum size of __builtin_object_size for it should be -1,
right?

>  It also handles
>=20
> struct C { int n; struct A a; int x; };
>=20
> as if a.data[] can be up to 4 elements large (we allow an array to extend
> flexibly to padding - but only if it is trailing).

A little confused here:=20=20
        when the structure with a trailing flexible-array member is a middle
field of=20
        an outer structure, GCC extension will treat it as a flexible-array
too? But the
        maximum size of this flexible-array will be bounded by the size of =
the
padding
        of that field?=20
Is the above understanding correct?

>  I see that's not
> consistently handled though.
>=20
> I think the [] syntax should follow the C standard as what testcases are
> accepted/rejected by the frontend and any extensions there should be
> documented

Agreed, usually where these extension should be documented?

> (those are separate from what the former array_at_struct_end_p
> allowed semantically

So, your mean to leave such extension out of =E2=80=9Carray_at_struct_end_p=
=E2=80=9D (the
current =E2=80=9Carray_ref_flexible_size_p=E2=80=9D)?=20
Handle them separately instead?=