efriedma added a comment. In D147626#4316212 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626#4316212>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D147626#4316190 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626#4316190>, @efriedma > wrote: > >>> If there's not indications of this being disruptive on non-MSVC-compatible >>> targets, then we may still be able to get away with rejecting the extension >>> there. >> >> If we need to have the codepath anyway, there isn't much harm in allowing it >> on all targets, I think. There's really only one possible interpretation >> for the construct. > > You would think, except the GCC extension differs based on C vs C++: > https://godbolt.org/z/E14Yz37To as does the extension in Clang, but > differently than GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/zYznaYPf5 and so we'd also have > to dig into solving that if we wanted to keep GCC compatibility behavior. I don't see any unions there? Declaring a flexible array is separate from flexible array initialization. Actually, despite my saying the interpretation for unions is "obvious", it's actually a little more weird than I thought: `union x { short x[]; }; static_assert(sizeof(x)==2);` compiles with msvc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
