https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724
--- Comment #2 from xur at google dot com --- Do you mean the result of 0 in g++ is intentional? But I'm not quite understand the relation with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. This macro does not seem to be check in tree-objsz pass. In other words, if I unset _FORTIFY_SOURCE or set it 1, I still get the same result. Could you give me some pointer of the reference that I can check? Thanks, Rong On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:05 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Well, C has flexible array members, while C++ does not have those, so > there is > a significant difference in between the two. And when you embed a [0] > array > into another structure, it is intentional that _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 (i.e. the > more > restrictive mode, beyond the standards) only allows to fill the fields and > not > cross to outside of that. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug. >
