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 44A083884F86; Fri,  9 Dec 2022 19:18:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 44A083884F86
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670613483;
	bh=UWoKyB8MuL8cj6PQnf6OpetAyufL4tQ2zsbkm56va1o=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kdNCZ5LknFWhUoom/WT8sJ3QUQLqok0hrvtt2CmiN6kkWM0vk6E+p1FzoQKEhC4hV
	 HRqp8xZUU/Yx9E+crXh3eJPCA1GNa6hxs5V+vwhFEepId9cx6VA/zWAdSvRJBoJzDM
	 TKPlSva9dWXW3leMjp1uvpRnijYzlaN3BSwBKFZw=
From: "colomar.6.4.3 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/108036] [11/12/13 Regression] Spurious warning for
 zero-sized array parameters to a function
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 19:18:03 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: colomar.6.4.3 at gmail dot com
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: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108036-4-K3G449D1ce@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108036-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108036-4@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=3D108036

--- Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3 at gmail dot com> ---
Hi Andrew!

Just a few nitpicks:

-  In the first testcase you posted, the [] is missing the 0: [0].

-  In the reduced test case, you call the pointer to one past the end as 'e=
nd'.
 That is misleading, since 'end' is commonly also used for pointers to the =
last
byte in an array, normally the NUL byte in strings.  Using the term 'end'
meaning one-past-the-end is likely to end up in off-by-one errors.  So much
that I found a few of them for exactly that reason this week :)

This last point is why I like using array syntax, so I can clrealy specify
'end[1]' and 'past_end[0]', and they are clearly different things.

Cheers,

Alex=