https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #19 from Kees Cook <kees at outflux dot net> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #18) > The zero size case exists (and is documented) solely as a substitute for > flexible array members. Treating is as an ordinary array would disable that > extension. It might be appropriate to provide a separate option to control > it but conflating it with the other cases (one or more elements) doesn't > seem like the robust design. > > As I mentioned in the review of the Clang change, > https://reviews.llvm.org/D126864, so that code bases that use some larger > number of elements than zero, such as one, and that can't easily change, can > still benefit from the BOS enhancement for the remaining cases, it would be > helpful for the new option to accept the minimum number of elements at which > a trailing array ceases to be considered a poor-man's flexible array member. I see your point about gaining the "trailing array" fix without breaking the older code bases, but that doesn't seem to fit the name (nor purpose) of -fstrict-flex-arrays, which should be considered a "complete" fix. To me it looks like -fstrict-flex-arrays should kill the [0] extension, the ancient [1] misuse, and the "anything trailing is flex" logic. If fixing _only_ the latter is desired, perhaps add an option for that, but no one is actually asking for it yet. :) The Linux kernel wants the "fully correct" mode.
