On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote: > But now that I'm re-reading the answer above I see that Joseph > was suggesting that a5_7[5][0] should be diagnosed when the patch > accepts it as an extension. I think we do want to accept it > because a5_7 is treated as a flexible array member (as an extension) > and so the upper bound of the major index is unknown. I.e., FA5_7 > is defined like so:
If you treat it as a flexible array member, then, yes, it would be valid. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
