Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <937b0b529509ec1641453ef7c13f38e2d7cc813e.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] zd1211rw/zd_usb.h: Replace zero-length array with
 flexible-array member
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>, Ulrich Kunitz <kune@deine-taler.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:15:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <fb3395d7-e932-10ac-1feb-ab2ceb63424e@embeddedor.com>
References: <20200305111216.GA24982@embeddedor>
         <87k13yq2jo.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
         <256881484c5db07e47c611a56550642a6f6bd8e9.camel@perches.com>
         <87blpapyu5.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
         <1bb7270f-545b-23ca-aa27-5b3c52fba1be@embeddedor.com>
         <87r1y0nwip.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
         <48ff1333-0a14-36d8-9565-a7f13a06c974@embeddedor.com>
         <021d1125-3ffd-39ef-395a-b796c527bde4@gmail.com>
         <fb3395d7-e932-10ac-1feb-ab2ceb63424e@embeddedor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:13 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> On 3/10/20 5:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > On 3/10/20 5:52 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 3/10/20 8:56 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > > + jes
> > > > 
> > > > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> writes:
> > > > > > I wrote in a confusing way, my question above was about the actual patch
> > > > > > and not the the title. For example, Jes didn't like this style change:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11402315/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It doesn't seem that that comment adds a lot to the conversation. The only
> > > > > thing that it says is literally "fix the compiler". By the way, more than
> > > > > a hundred patches have already been applied to linux-next[1] and he seems
> > > > > to be the only person that has commented such a thing.
> > > > 
> > > > But I also asked who prefers this format in that thread, you should not
> > > > ignore questions from two maintainers (me and Jes).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry. I thought the changelog text had already the proper information.
> > > In the changelog text I'm quoting the GCC documentation below:
> > > 
> > > "The preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types like struct line
> > > above is the ISO C99 flexible array member..." [1]
> > > 
> > > I'm also including a link to the following KSPP open issue:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> > > 
> > > The issue above mentions the following:
> > > 
> > > "Both cases (0-byte and 1-byte arrays) pose confusion for things like sizeof(),
> > > CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE."
> > > 
> > > sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array members have
> > > incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in which the sizeof operator
> > > is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero.
> > > Such instances may be hiding some bugs. So, the idea is also to get completely rid
> > > of those sorts of issues.
> > 
> > As I stated in my previous answer, this seems more code churn than an
> > actual fix. If this is a real problem, shouldn't the work be put into
> > fixing the compiler to handle foo[0] instead? It seems that is where the
> > real value would be.
> > 
> 
> Yeah. But, unfortunately, I'm not a compiler guy, so I'm not able to fix the
> compiler as you suggest. And I honestly don't see what is so annoying/disturbing
> about applying a patch that removes the 0 from foo[0] when it brings benefit
> to the whole codebase.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually make a difference as
all the compilers produce the same object code with either form.

There may be some compiler warning by clang through.

Does any version of gcc produce a warning on 

	struct foo {
		...
		type bar[0];
	};

but not

	struct foo {
		...
		type bar[];
	};