On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Qing Zhao wrote: > However, I am not very confident on the wording of the doc, is the > current wording good enough for this? Or do you have any suggestion on > how to make it better?
I'm not convinced the statement about size (in relation to a structure with the member omitted) is useful for unions the way it is for structures. The structure with the member omitted is a relevant concept for thinking about a structure with a flexible array member (the flexible array member essentially goes after that structure); it's much less relevant for thinking about a union with a flexible array member. (The statement that the size is zero when all members are flexible array members still seems a useful one to make.) -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
