https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
>
> What I meant to say is: See also bug 81141 for a related request (limited to
> strncpy). The patch submitted there issues a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What I meant to say is: See also bug 81141 for a related request (limited to
strncpy). The patch submitted there issues a warning for a small subset of the
problem (strncpy) but does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
On second thought, the zero-length array misuses aren't limited to the (sizeof
P / sizeof *P) pattern. When the type of *P is one byte wide they extend even
to sizeof P. For example, the following call to st
