On 10/23/2015 10:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The original code deliberately avoids diagnosing the case of last array members with bounds greater than 1 (see the comment about "a poor man's flexible array member" added with a fix for bug 41935) and I didn't want to change that.
Jakub added that, Cc'd. Do you recall why this was done?
But if there is sentiment for tightening it up I would be very much in favor.
I'd be in favor, but this is Joseph's call really. Bernd
