Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:40:33 +0000 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> Cc: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r277203 - in head/sys: kern sys Message-ID: <AAB6DA30-A9BA-43A6-9624-2231FBAB596C@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20150115123557.GC7669@britannica.bec.de> References: <201501142344.t0ENi0tI088747@svn.freebsd.org> <20150115123557.GC7669@britannica.bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 15 Jan 2015, at 12:35, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> = wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:44:00PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: >> - As we anticipate embedding mbufs headers within variable-size = regions of >> memory in the future, change the definitions of byte arrays = embedded in >> mbufs to be of size [0] rather than [MLEN] and [MHLEN]. >=20 > This is not valid C. You may be able to use flexible array members = ([]) > instead. Life is not that simple -- see the Phabricator review discussion which = considers this point in detail. The short version is: using [] for the = last entry in a union within a structure is explicitly disallowed in the = C spec, actually works fine with [0] in gcc + extensions, which are a = feature used in the kernel already. If in doubt, try replacing [0] with = [] and recompiling, it's an instructive and morally improving process. = We will want to feed this back to the C standardisation folk at some = point. Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AAB6DA30-A9BA-43A6-9624-2231FBAB596C>