On 02/05/2016 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
But since GCC does allow global/static objects of structs with
flexible array members to be initialized, and (presumably) will
continue to even after the above is rejected in C++, the code
in the patch that detects overflowing such variables will contin
struct A
{
int i, ar[];
};
int main()
{
int k = 24;
struct A a = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int j = 42;
return a.ar[1];
}
G++ accepts this testcase and happily puts k and j in the same stack
slots as elements of a.ar[], while GCC rejects it. We shouldn't accept
it. In any case, we should u
On 02/04/2016 04:35 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 02/04/2016 02:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/04/2016 03:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Refers to the declared object that constains the subobject
referenced
+ by OPER. When the object is initialized, makes it possible to
determine
+ t
On 02/04/2016 02:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/04/2016 03:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Refers to the declared object that constains the subobject
referenced
+ by OPER. When the object is initialized, makes it possible to
determine
+ the actual size of a flexible array member use
On 02/04/2016 03:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Refers to the declared object that constains the subobject referenced
+ by OPER. When the object is initialized, makes it possible to determine
+ the actual size of a flexible array member used as the buffer passed
+ as OPER to placem
The attached patch implements the changes to the warning we
discussed in IRC yesterday.
With the patch GCC is by default silent about the test case in
bug 69662 and diagnoses it only with -Wplacement-new=2. Arrays
of other sizes and statically allocated objects are diagnosed
as before.
Tested o
