Re: [RFC][PATCH v1 1/4] Documentation change

[Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>]

> On Apr 23, 2024, at 14:04, Joseph Myers <josmyers@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote:
> 
>> +The size of the union is as if the flexiable array member were omitted
>> +except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply.
> 
> "trailing padding" is more a concept for structures than for unions (where 
> padding depends on which union member is active).  But I suppose it's 
> still true that the union can be larger than without the flexible member, 
> because of alignment considerations.
> 
> union u { char c; int a[]; };
> 
> needs to be sufficiently aligned for int, which means the size is a 
> multiple of the size of int, whereas if the flexible array member weren't 
> present, the size could be 1 byte.

Yes, that’s exact what I tried to include in the documentation part -:)
And I have a testing case for this in the patch. 

However, I am not very confident on the wording of the doc, is the current wording good enough for this?
Or do you have any suggestion on how to make it better?

Thanks a lot!

Qing
> 
> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> josmyers@redhat.com
>