[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB52428EFEFA7CD058331CFF848FFF0@DB7PR04MB5242.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 04:28:14 +0000
From: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@....com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
CC: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH][next] wireless: marvell: Replace zero-length array
with flexible-array member
Hi Gustavo,
> The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
> to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length
> types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
>
> struct foo {
> int stuff;
> struct boo array[];
> };
>
> By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
> case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us
> prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently
> introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
>
> Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
> change:
>
> "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
> may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length
> arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
Thanks for this path.
Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists