On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:35:12PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote: > > One of the major purposes of the new option -fstrict-flex-array is to > > encourage standard conforming programming style. > > > > So, it might be reasonable to treat -fstrict-flex-array similar as > > -pedantic (but only for flexible array members)? > > If so, then issuing warnings when the standard doesn?t support is > > reasonable and desirable. > > I guess the point is that "-std=c89 -fstrict-flex-arrays=3" leaves "[]" > available for use still? I think this doesn't matter. If someone wants > it to be really strict, they'd just add -Wpedantic.
Yes, I think that makes sense. Richard.
