https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen at sdaoden dot eu> --- different to some other comments i think this is plain a bug in gcc. C99, 6.7.8 p21, and C23 is not different (here 6.7.10 p22; disclaimer: i have not truly read any standard beyond C99, though!!) want ``` If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration. ``` so with char we get NUL aka "null character" padding. However, if the initializer already has a null character terminator, then why should gcc enforce yet another NUL, it should simply not apply padding if there is no room. Now, since this bug is ten months old, can it be implied that on the code production level nothing bad happens?
