On 2023-01-31 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:25:54PM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
The tree object size pass tries to fail when it detects a flex array in
the struct, but it ends up doing the right thing only when the flex
array is in the outermost struct. For nested
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:25:54PM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> The tree object size pass tries to fail when it detects a flex array in
> the struct, but it ends up doing the right thing only when the flex
> array is in the outermost struct. For nested cases (such as arrays
> nested in a uni
> On Jan 26, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-26 11:20, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi, Siddhesh,
>> Thanks a lot for this patch, after -fstrict-flex-array functionality has
>> been added into GCC,
>> I think that making the tree-object-size to have consistent behavior with
On 2023-01-26 11:20, Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi, Siddhesh,
Thanks a lot for this patch, after -fstrict-flex-array functionality has been
added into GCC,
I think that making the tree-object-size to have consistent behavior with
flex arrays is a
valuable and natural work that need to be added.
I als
Hi, Siddhesh,
Thanks a lot for this patch, after -fstrict-flex-array functionality has been
added into GCC,
I think that making the tree-object-size to have consistent behavior with flex
arrays is a
valuable and natural work that need to be added.
I also like the comments you added into tree-
