r281277 - [Sema] Fix PR30346: relax __builtin_object_size checks.

Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Sep 20 03:04:51 PDT 2016

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:21:33PM -0700, George Burgess IV wrote:
> I'm entirely unfamiliar with struct-path-tbaa, so Hal, do you see a reason
> why struct-path-tbaa wouldn't play nicely with flexible arrays at the end
> of types? Glancing at it, I don't think it should cause problems, but a
> more authoritative answer would really be appreciated. :) If it might cause
> issues now or in the future, I'm happy to be conservative here if
> -fno-strict-path-tbaa is given, too.

Please don't call them flexible types. That's a misname. The standard
provides a clear mechanism for arrays with statically undefined size --
which is providing no size at all. We do provide the same support for
array size of 1 for legacy compat. Any other size is basically abuse.


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list