From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A4C553858D3C; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:59:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A4C553858D3C From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/94428] Reintroduce -Wzero-length-array Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:59:05 +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: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: segher 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: 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: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:59:05 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94428 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > With the introduction of -Wzero-length-bounds in GCC 10 (which, > incidentally, was added specifically to ease the adoption of the stricter > array bounds checking in GCC 10 by the kernel), adding a knob to diagnose > declarations of zero-length arrays sounds like a good idea to me. Should we warn about this by default even, for new enough C versions? So f= or -std=3Dc99 and later? What about even for -std=3Dgnu99 and later? Warning for arrays of length 1 is more dubious. If we really want that it should be a separate option?=