Re: [PATCH][next] zd1211rw/zd_usb.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

"Gustavo A. R. Silva" [off-list ref] writes:

On 3/10/20 5:34 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/20 6:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/20 5:20 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/20 6:13 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/20 5:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:

quoted

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.

My point is that it adds what seems like unnecessary churn, which is not
a benefit, and it doesn't improve the generated code.

As an example of one of the benefits of this is that the compiler won't trigger
a warning in the following case:

struct boo {
	int stuff;
	struct foo array[0];
	int morestuff;
};

The result of the code above is an undefined behavior.

On the other hand in the case below, the compiles does trigger a warning:

struct boo {
	int stuff;
	struct foo array[];
	int morestuff;
};

Right, this just underlines my prior argument, that this should be fixed
in the compiler.

In the meantime it's not at all harmful to do something about it in the codebase.

Cleanup patches are not always harmful, at least they can create bugs
and conflicts. But I think in this case there are clear benefits for the
churn so I'm going to apply these.

Sorry Jes :)

-- 
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches