https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66661
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |joseph at codesourcery dot com,
| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #10)
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, P at draigBrady dot com wrote:
>
> > I'm not understanding completely TBH. Are flexible array members not
> > special?
> > Should the optimizations be restricted on access through the flexible array,
> > because I presume most/all existing allocation code is not considering this
> > alignment/padding issue. I certainly didn't notice any examples when looking
> > into a workaround which I came up with independently. For my reference there
> > are some notes RE GCC's divergence from C99 re padding and flexi arrays at:
> > https://sites.google.com/site/embeddedmonologue/home/c-programming/data-alig
>
> That page doesn't exist - I assume you mean:
> https://sites.google.com/site/embeddedmonologue/home/c-programming/data-
> alignment-structure-padding-and-flexible-array-member
>
> That page is over ten years out of date - it's quoting the wording in C99
> as it was before it was corrected by TC2 (published 2004-11-15). You
> should look at the post-TC2 wording rather than the old wording with
> various defects in it.
Could you quote the post-TC2 wording here for us so we don't have to go
looking?
