[[GCC13,V3] 1/2] Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n] and new attribute strict_flex_array
Commit Message
Hi, Joseph and Nathan,
Could you please review the C and C++ FE parts of the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599901.html
The middle-end changes have been approved by Richard already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/600379.html
Thanks.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com<mailto:qing.zhao@oracle.com>>
Subject: [[GCC13][Patch][V3] 1/2] Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n] and new attribute strict_flex_array
Date: August 17, 2022 at 10:40:41 AM EDT
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org<mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: rguenther@suse.de<mailto:rguenther@suse.de>, jakub@redhat.com<mailto:jakub@redhat.com>, msebor@gmail.com<mailto:msebor@gmail.com>, keescook@chromium.org<mailto:keescook@chromium.org>, joseph@codesourcery.com<mailto:joseph@codesourcery.com>, Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com<mailto:qing.zhao@oracle.com>>
Add the following new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n] and a corresponding
attribute strict_flex_array to GCC:
'-fstrict-flex-array'
Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array member
in a stricter way. The positive form is equivalent to
'-fstrict-flex-array=3', which is the strictest. A trailing array
is treated as a flexible array member only when it is declared as a
flexible array member per C99 standard onwards. The negative form
is equivalent to '-fstrict-flex-array=0', which is the least
strict. All trailing arrays of structures are treated as flexible
array members.
'-fstrict-flex-array=LEVEL'
Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array member
in a stricter way. The value of LEVEL controls the level of
strictness.
The possible values of LEVEL are the same as for the
'strict_flex_array' attribute (*note Variable Attributes::).
You can control this behavior for a specific trailing array field
of a structure by using the variable attribute 'strict_flex_array'
attribute (*note Variable Attributes::).
This option is only valid when flexible array member is supported in the
language. FOR ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
array member at all, this option will be invalid and a warning will be issued.
When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
extension and one-size array are supported, as a result, LEVEL=3 will be
invalid and a warning will be issued.
'strict_flex_array (LEVEL)'
The 'strict_flex_array' attribute should be attached to the
trailing array field of a structure. It specifies the level of
strictness of treating the trailing array field of a structure as a
flexible array member. LEVEL must be an integer betwen 0 to 3.
LEVEL=0 is the least strict level, all trailing arrays of
structures are treated as flexible array members. LEVEL=3 is the
strictest level, only when the trailing array is declared as a
flexible array member per C99 standard onwards ([]), it is treated
as a flexible array member.
There are two more levels in between 0 and 3, which are provided to
support older codes that use GCC zero-length array extension ([0])
or one-size array as flexible array member ([1]): When LEVEL is 1,
the trailing array is treated as a flexible array member when it is
declared as either [], [0], or [1]; When LEVEL is 2, the trailing
array is treated as a flexible array member when it is declared as
either [], or [0].
This attribute can be used with or without '-fstrict-flex-array'.
When both the attribute and the option present at the same time,
the level of the strictness for the specific trailing array field
is determined by the attribute.
This attribute is only valid when flexible array member is supported in the
language. For ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
array member at all, this attribute will be invalid and a warning is issued.
When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
extension and one-size array are supported, as a result, LEVEL=3 will be
invalid and a warning is issued.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-attribs.cc<http://c-attribs.cc> (handle_strict_flex_arrays_attribute): New function.
(c_common_attribute_table): New item for strict_flex_array.
* c-opts.cc<http://c-opts.cc> (c_common_post_options): Handle the combination of
-fstrict-flex-arrays and -std specially.
* c.opt: (fstrict-flex-array): New option.
(fstrict-flex-array=): New option.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
* c-decl.cc<http://c-decl.cc> (flexible_array_member_type_p): New function.
(one_element_array_type_p): Likewise.
(zero_length_array_type_p): Likewise.
(add_flexible_array_elts_to_size): Call new utility
routine flexible_array_member_type_p.
(is_flexible_array_member_p): New function.
(finish_struct): Set the new DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY flag.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* module.cc<http://module.cc> (trees_out::core_bools): Stream out new bit
decl_not_flexarray.
(trees_in::core_bools): Stream in new bit decl_not_flexarray.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/extend.texi: Document strict_flex_array attribute.
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -fstrict-flex-array[=n] option.
* print-tree.cc<http://print-tree.cc> (print_node): Print new bit decl_not_flexarray.
* tree-core.h (struct tree_decl_common): New bit field
decl_not_flexarray.
* tree-streamer-in.cc<http://tree-streamer-in.cc> (unpack_ts_decl_common_value_fields): Stream
in new bit decl_not_flexarray.
* tree-streamer-out.cc<http://tree-streamer-out.cc> (pack_ts_decl_common_value_fields): Stream
out new bit decl_not_flexarray.
* tree.cc<http://tree.cc> (array_at_struct_end_p): Update it with the new bit field
decl_not_flexarray.
* tree.h (DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY): New flag.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/strict-flex-array-1.C: New test.
* g++.dg/strict-flex-array-2.C: New test.
* g++.dg/strict-flex-array-3.C: New test.
* g++.dg/strict-flex-array-4.C: New test.
* gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-3.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-4.c: New test.
---
gcc/c-family/c-attribs.cc<http://c-attribs.cc> | 94 +++++++++++++++
gcc/c-family/c-opts.cc<http://c-opts.cc> | 41 +++++++
gcc/c-family/c.opt | 7 ++
gcc/c/c-decl.cc<http://c-decl.cc> | 130 +++++++++++++++++++--
gcc/cp/module.cc<http://module.cc> | 2 +
gcc/doc/extend.texi | 33 ++++++
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 34 +++++-
gcc/print-tree.cc<http://print-tree.cc> | 8 +-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-1.C | 31 +++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-2.C | 16 +++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-3.C | 21 ++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-4.C | 9 ++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-1.c | 31 +++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-2.c | 15 +++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-3.c | 21 ++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-4.c | 10 ++
gcc/tree-core.h | 5 +-
gcc/tree-streamer-in.cc<http://tree-streamer-in.cc> | 1 +
gcc/tree-streamer-out.cc<http://tree-streamer-out.cc> | 1 +
gcc/tree.cc<http://tree.cc> | 45 +++++--
gcc/tree.h | 14 ++-
21 files changed, 541 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-1.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-2.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-3.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/strict-flex-array-4.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-1.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-2.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-3.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/strict-flex-array-4.c
--
2.31.1
Comments
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi, Joseph and Nathan,
>
> Could you please review the C and C++ FE parts of the patch?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599901.html
I think some work is still needed on the diagnostic wording.
> + "%qE attribute may not be specified for a non array field",
"non-array" not "non array".
> + "not supported with a ISO C before C99", name);
"a ISO C" is not proper usage. I think something like "by ISO C before
C99" would be better. Likewise "a ISO C++".
"!flag_isoc99" is more usual than "flag_isoc99 == 0".
> + "not supported with a GNU extension GNU89", name);
"a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think
you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an
individual feature.
In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members. So I'd expect
them to have exactly the same semantics as in C99, so disallowing a
particular feature for gnu89 here seems suspect.
In the manual, any literal code should be enclosed in @code{} or @samp{}.
That replaces the use of ASCII quotes "" that you currently have in the
documentation (that should never be used outside of @code, @samp and
similar).
> +When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
And @option{} should be used around "-std=gnu89" here (except as noted
above, I think it's suspect to disallow parts of this feature for gnu89).
> +language. FOR ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
"FOR" should be "For".
Hi, Joseph,
Thanks a lot for your comment.
> On Aug 30, 2022, at 6:53 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Hi, Joseph and Nathan,
>>
>> Could you please review the C and C++ FE parts of the patch?
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599901.html
>
> I think some work is still needed on the diagnostic wording.
>
>> + "%qE attribute may not be specified for a non array field",
>
> "non-array" not "non array".
Okay.
>
>> + "not supported with a ISO C before C99", name);
>
> "a ISO C" is not proper usage. I think something like "by ISO C before
> C99" would be better. Likewise "a ISO C++".
>
> "!flag_isoc99" is more usual than "flag_isoc99 == 0".
Okay.
>
>> + "not supported with a GNU extension GNU89", name);
>
> "a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think
> you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an
> individual feature.
Is “not supported by GNU extension GNU89” better?
>
> In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members.
Yes, but only [0],[1] are supported as flexible array members. The C99 flexible array member [] is not supported by GNU89, right?
Then, -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 is not supported by -std=gnu89.
> So I'd expect
> them to have exactly the same semantics as in C99, so disallowing a
> particular feature for gnu89 here seems suspect.
>
> In the manual, any literal code should be enclosed in @code{} or @samp{}.
> That replaces the use of ASCII quotes "" that you currently have in the
> documentation (that should never be used outside of @code, @samp and
> similar).
Okay. Will update those places.
>
>> +When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
>
> And @option{} should be used around "-std=gnu89" here (except as noted
> above, I think it's suspect to disallow parts of this feature for gnu89).
Okay. Will update.
>
>> +language. FOR ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
>
> "FOR" should be "For".
Okay.
thanks.
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > "a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think
> > you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an
> > individual feature.
>
> Is “not supported by GNU extension GNU89” better?
There are no existing diagnostics referring to GNU89 at all. I don't
think "GNU extension" needs to be mentioned in that diagnostic, but I also
think that having that diagnostic at all is ill-conceived.
> > In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members.
>
> Yes, but only [0],[1] are supported as flexible array members. The C99
> flexible array member [] is not supported by GNU89, right?
C99 flexible array members are fully supported in GNU89 mode. In general,
any feature from a new language version that doesn't affect code that was
valid in previous versions is likely to be accepted as an extension with
options for older language versions.
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 1:21 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> "a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think
>>> you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an
>>> individual feature.
>>
>> Is “not supported by GNU extension GNU89” better?
>
> There are no existing diagnostics referring to GNU89 at all. I don't
> think "GNU extension" needs to be mentioned in that diagnostic, but I also
> think that having that diagnostic at all is ill-conceived.
>
>>> In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members.
>>
>> Yes, but only [0],[1] are supported as flexible array members. The C99
>> flexible array member [] is not supported by GNU89, right?
>
> C99 flexible array members are fully supported in GNU89 mode. In general,
> any feature from a new language version that doesn't affect code that was
> valid in previous versions is likely to be accepted as an extension with
> options for older language versions.
We have a previous discussion on this: (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/599067.html)
And looks like that the previous conclusion was wrong… please see the following:
======
> How is level 3 (thus -fstrict-flex-array) interpreted when you specify
> -std=c89? How for -std=gnu89?
1. what’s the major difference between -std=c89 and -std=gnu89 on flexible array? (Checked online, cannot find a concrete answer on this).
** my understanding is: -std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support [0] and [1], but not [].
Is this correct?
If my answer to the first question is correct, then:
2. When -fstrict-flex-array=n and -std=c89 present at the same time, which one has the higher priority?
** I think that -std=c89 should be honored over -fstrict-flex-array, therefore we should disable -fstrict-flex-array=n when n > 0 and issue warnings to the user.
3. how about -fstrict-flex-array=n and -std=gnu89 present at the same time?
** When -std=gnu89 present, [] is not supported. So, we need to issue an warning to disable -fstrict-flex-array=3; but level 1 and level 2 is Okay.
We also need to document the above.
====
So, from my understanding from what you said so far,
-std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support ALL flexible array including [0], [1], and [].
Is this understanding correct?
thanks.
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 2:55 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 1:21 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>>> "a GNU extension" suggests a particular language feature, but I think
>>>> you're actually referring here to a whole language version rather than an
>>>> individual feature.
>>>
>>> Is “not supported by GNU extension GNU89” better?
>>
>> There are no existing diagnostics referring to GNU89 at all. I don't
>> think "GNU extension" needs to be mentioned in that diagnostic, but I also
>> think that having that diagnostic at all is ill-conceived.
>>
>>>> In any case, -std=gnu89 supports flexible array members.
>>>
>>> Yes, but only [0],[1] are supported as flexible array members. The C99
>>> flexible array member [] is not supported by GNU89, right?
>>
>> C99 flexible array members are fully supported in GNU89 mode. In general,
>> any feature from a new language version that doesn't affect code that was
>> valid in previous versions is likely to be accepted as an extension with
>> options for older language versions.
>
>
> We have a previous discussion on this: (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/599067.html)
>
> And looks like that the previous conclusion was wrong… please see the following:
>
> ======
>
>> How is level 3 (thus -fstrict-flex-array) interpreted when you specify
>> -std=c89? How for -std=gnu89?
>
> 1. what’s the major difference between -std=c89 and -std=gnu89 on flexible array? (Checked online, cannot find a concrete answer on this).
> ** my understanding is: -std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support [0] and [1], but not [].
> Is this correct?
>
> If my answer to the first question is correct, then:
>
> 2. When -fstrict-flex-array=n and -std=c89 present at the same time, which one has the higher priority?
> ** I think that -std=c89 should be honored over -fstrict-flex-array, therefore we should disable -fstrict-flex-array=n when n > 0 and issue warnings to the user.
>
>
> 3. how about -fstrict-flex-array=n and -std=gnu89 present at the same time?
> ** When -std=gnu89 present, [] is not supported. So, we need to issue an warning to disable -fstrict-flex-array=3; but level 1 and level 2 is Okay.
>
> We also need to document the above.
> ====
>
> So, from my understanding from what you said so far,
>
> -std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support ALL flexible array including [0], [1], and [].
>
> Is this understanding correct?
And also for C++:
-std=c++98 will not support any flexible array, but -std=gnu++98 will support ALL flexible array ([0],[1].[])?
Qing
>
> thanks.
>
> Qing
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Joseph S. Myers
>> joseph@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > How is level 3 (thus -fstrict-flex-array) interpreted when you specify
> > -std=c89? How for -std=gnu89?
>
> 1. what’s the major difference between -std=c89 and -std=gnu89 on flexible array? (Checked online, cannot find a concrete answer on this).
> ** my understanding is: -std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support [0] and [1], but not [].
> Is this correct?
Flexible array members are supported in all C standard modes, since they
don't affect the semantics of any valid pre-C99 program (only make valid
programs that were previously erroneous).
With -std=c89 or -std=gnu89, -pedantic will give a warning "ISO C90 does
not support flexible array members" and -pedantic-errors will change that
to an error.
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> How is level 3 (thus -fstrict-flex-array) interpreted when you specify
>>> -std=c89? How for -std=gnu89?
>>
>> 1. what’s the major difference between -std=c89 and -std=gnu89 on flexible array? (Checked online, cannot find a concrete answer on this).
>> ** my understanding is: -std=c89 will not support any flexible array (neither [], [0], [1]), but -std=gnu89 will support [0] and [1], but not [].
>> Is this correct?
>
> Flexible array members are supported in all C standard modes, since they
> don't affect the semantics of any valid pre-C99 program (only make valid
> programs that were previously erroneous).
>
> With -std=c89 or -std=gnu89, -pedantic will give a warning "ISO C90 does
> not support flexible array members" and -pedantic-errors will change that
> to an error.
A little confused here…
With both -std=c89 and -std=gnu89, -pedantic will warning on “[]” (C99 flexible array member):
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 ~]$ gcc -std=c89 t.c -pedantic
t.c:5:7: warning: ISO C90 does not support flexible array members [-Wpedantic]
5 | int b[];
| ^
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 ~]$ gcc -std=gnu89 t.c -pedantic
t.c:5:7: warning: ISO C90 does not support flexible array members [-Wpedantic]
5 | int b[];
| ^
Does the above mean that -std=gnu89 does not support C99 flexible array member, then
When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
It should be reasonable to issue warning on this? (-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 is not supported by GNU extension GNU89, ignored)
Right?
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Does the above mean that -std=gnu89 does not support C99 flexible array
> member, then
No.
Flexible array members are supported by GCC in all C standards modes. The
C90 standard doesn't support them, but that's irrelevant to what GCC
supports; it just means a diagnostic is required for strict conformance in
pre-C99 modes.
> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
-pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
-fstrict-flex-array modes there.
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 3:52 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Does the above mean that -std=gnu89 does not support C99 flexible array
>> member, then
>
> No.
>
> Flexible array members are supported by GCC in all C standards modes. The
> C90 standard doesn't support them, but that's irrelevant to what GCC
> supports; it just means a diagnostic is required for strict conformance in
> pre-C99 modes.
Okay.
>
>> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
>> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
>
> That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
> for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
> -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
> -fstrict-flex-array modes there.
So, you mean,
1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning;
?
Then, how about:
-std=c89:
1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too.
?
Qing
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
> >> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
> >
> > That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
> > for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
> > -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
> > -fstrict-flex-array modes there.
>
> So, you mean,
>
> 1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
> 2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning;
>
> ?
Yes.
> Then, how about:
>
> -std=c89:
>
> 1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
> 2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too.
>
> ?
Yes.
Okay, I am fine with this.
Richard and Kees, what’s your opinion on this?
thanks.
Qing
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>>> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
>>>> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
>>>
>>> That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
>>> for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
>>> -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
>>> -fstrict-flex-array modes there.
>>
>> So, you mean,
>>
>> 1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
>> 2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning;
>>
>> ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Then, how about:
>>
>> -std=c89:
>>
>> 1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
>> 2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too.
>>
>> ?
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
> On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:16 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Okay, I am fine with this.
Another thought on this is:
One of the major purposes of the new option -fstrict-flex-array is to encourage standard conforming programming style.
So, it might be reasonable to treat -fstrict-flex-array similar as -pedantic (but only for flexible array members)?
If so, then issuing warnings when the standard doesn’t support is reasonable and desirable.
(I guess that this is the original motivation to add such warnings).
Qing
>
> Richard and Kees, what’s your opinion on this?
>
> thanks.
>
> Qing
>
>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>>>> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
>>>>> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
>>>>
>>>> That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
>>>> for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
>>>> -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
>>>> -fstrict-flex-array modes there.
>>>
>>> So, you mean,
>>>
>>> 1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
>>> 2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning;
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Then, how about:
>>>
>>> -std=c89:
>>>
>>> 1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
>>> 2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph S. Myers
>> joseph@codesourcery.com
>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:16:49PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >>>> When -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 (ONLY C99 flexible array member
> >>>> [] is treated as a valid flexible array) present together,
> >>>
> >>> That seems reasonable enough without a warning. If people want a warning
> >>> for flexible array members in older language modes, they can use
> >>> -pedantic; I don't think we need to warn for any particular
> >>> -fstrict-flex-array modes there.
> >>
> >> So, you mean,
> >>
> >> 1. GCC with -std=gnu89 support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
> >> 2. Therefore. -std=gnu89 + -fstrict-flex-array=3 does not need a warning;
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Then, how about:
> >>
> >> -std=c89:
> >>
> >> 1. GCC with -std=c89 also support all [0], [1], and [] as Flexible array member;
> >> 2, therefore, -std=c89 + -fstrict-flex-array does not need a warning too.
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> Okay, I am fine with this.
>
> Richard and Kees, what’s your opinion on this?
Agreed: I think it's fine not to warn about these "conflicting" flags in
those cases. It looks like the C standard warnings about flexible arrays
are already hidden behind -Wpedantic, so nothing else is needed, IMO.
Using -fstrict-flex-arrays just enforces that warning. ;)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:35:12PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
> One of the major purposes of the new option -fstrict-flex-array is to encourage standard conforming programming style.
>
> So, it might be reasonable to treat -fstrict-flex-array similar as -pedantic (but only for flexible array members)?
> If so, then issuing warnings when the standard doesn’t support is reasonable and desirable.
I guess the point is that "-std=c89 -fstrict-flex-arrays=3" leaves "[]"
available for use still? I think this doesn't matter. If someone wants
it to be really strict, they'd just add -Wpedantic.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:35:12PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > One of the major purposes of the new option -fstrict-flex-array is to encourage standard conforming programming style.
> >
> > So, it might be reasonable to treat -fstrict-flex-array similar as -pedantic (but only for flexible array members)?
> > If so, then issuing warnings when the standard doesn?t support is reasonable and desirable.
>
> I guess the point is that "-std=c89 -fstrict-flex-arrays=3" leaves "[]"
> available for use still? I think this doesn't matter. If someone wants
> it to be really strict, they'd just add -Wpedantic.
Yes, I think that makes sense.
Richard.
Okay, then I will delete those new warnings I added in the version 3 of the patch.
Thanks.
Qing
> On Sep 1, 2022, at 2:11 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:35:12PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> One of the major purposes of the new option -fstrict-flex-array is to encourage standard conforming programming style.
>>>
>>> So, it might be reasonable to treat -fstrict-flex-array similar as -pedantic (but only for flexible array members)?
>>> If so, then issuing warnings when the standard doesn?t support is reasonable and desirable.
>>
>> I guess the point is that "-std=c89 -fstrict-flex-arrays=3" leaves "[]"
>> available for use still? I think this doesn't matter. If someone wants
>> it to be really strict, they'd just add -Wpedantic.
>
> Yes, I think that makes sense.
>
> Richard.
@@ -101,6 +101,8 @@ static tree handle_special_var_sec_attribute (tree *, tree, tree, int, bool *);
static tree handle_aligned_attribute (tree *, tree, tree, int, bool *);
static tree handle_warn_if_not_aligned_attribute (tree *, tree, tree,
int, bool *);
+static tree handle_strict_flex_arrays_attribute (tree *, tree, tree,
+ int, bool *);
static tree handle_weak_attribute (tree *, tree, tree, int, bool *) ;
static tree handle_noplt_attribute (tree *, tree, tree, int, bool *) ;
static tree handle_alias_ifunc_attribute (bool, tree *, tree, tree, bool *);
@@ -368,6 +370,8 @@ const struct attribute_spec c_common_attribute_table[] =
attr_aligned_exclusions },
{ "warn_if_not_aligned", 0, 1, false, false, false, false,
handle_warn_if_not_aligned_attribute, NULL },
+ { "strict_flex_arrays", 1, 1, false, false, false, false,
+ handle_strict_flex_arrays_attribute, NULL },
{ "weak", 0, 0, true, false, false, false,
handle_weak_attribute, NULL },
{ "noplt", 0, 0, true, false, false, false,
@@ -2505,6 +2509,96 @@ handle_warn_if_not_aligned_attribute (tree *node, tree name,
no_add_attrs, true);
}
+/* Handle a "strict_flex_arrays" attribute; arguments as in
+ struct attribute_spec.handler. */
+
+static tree
+handle_strict_flex_arrays_attribute (tree *node, tree name,
+ tree args, int ARG_UNUSED (flags),
+ bool *no_add_attrs)
+{
+ tree decl = *node;
+ tree argval = TREE_VALUE (args);
+
+ /* This attribute only applies to field decls of a structure. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (decl) != FIELD_DECL)
+ {
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl),
+ "%qE attribute may not be specified for %q+D", name, decl);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ /* This attribute only applies to field with array type. */
+ else if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (decl)) != ARRAY_TYPE)
+ {
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl),
+ "%qE attribute may not be specified for a non array field",
+ name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else if (TREE_CODE (argval) != INTEGER_CST)
+ {
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl),
+ "%qE attribute argument not an integer", name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else if (!tree_fits_uhwi_p (argval) || tree_to_uhwi (argval) > 3)
+ {
+ error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl),
+ "%qE attribute argument %qE is not an integer constant"
+ " between 0 and 3", name, argval);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ unsigned int level = tree_to_uhwi (argval);
+ /* check whether the attribute is valid based on language standard.
+ the attribute is only valid when flexible array member is
+ supported in the language. Therefore, we should invalid this attribute or
+ specific level of this attribute for the following situations:
+ A. When -std=c89 is specified, no language support at all, invalid this
+ attribute and issue a warning;
+ B. When -std=gnu89 is specified, only zero-length array extension and
+ one-size array are supported, level=3 will be invalid and a warning
+ will be issued.
+ C. C++ without GNU extension, no language support at all, invalid this
+ attribute and issue a warning;
+ D. C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array extension and one-size
+ array are supported, level=3 will be invalid and a warning will be
+ issued. */
+ if (level > 0)
+ {
+ if (!c_dialect_cxx () && flag_iso && flag_isoc99 == 0)
+ {
+ warning (OPT_Wattributes, "%qE attribute ignored since it is "
+ "not supported with a ISO C before C99", name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else if (!c_dialect_cxx () && !flag_iso
+ && flag_isoc99 == 0 && level == 3)
+ {
+ warning (OPT_Wattributes, "%qE = 3 attribute ignored since it is "
+ "not supported with a GNU extension GNU89", name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else if (c_dialect_cxx () && flag_iso)
+ {
+ warning (OPT_Wattributes, "%qE attribute ignored since it is "
+ "not supported with a ISO C++", name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ else if (c_dialect_cxx () && !flag_iso
+ && level == 3)
+ {
+ warning (OPT_Wattributes, "%qE = 3 attribute ignored since it is "
+ "not supported for C++ with GNU extension", name);
+ *no_add_attrs = true;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ return NULL_TREE;
+}
+
/* Handle a "weak" attribute; arguments as in
struct attribute_spec.handler. */
@@ -870,6 +870,47 @@ c_common_post_options (const char **pfilename)
SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (&global_options, &global_options_set,
flag_tree_loop_distribute_patterns, 0);
+ /* -fstrict-flex-arrays is only valid when flexible array member is
+ supported in the language. Therefore, we should invalid this option or
+ specific level of this option for the following situations:
+ A. When -std=c89 is specified, no language support at all, invalid this
+ option and issue a warning;
+ B. When -std=gnu89 is specified, only zero-length array extension and
+ one-size array are supported, level=3 will be invalid and a warning
+ will be issued.
+ C. C++ without GNU extension, no language support at all, invalid this
+ option and issue a warning;
+ D. C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array extension and one-size
+ array are supported, level=3 will be invalid and a warning will be
+ issued. */
+ if (flag_strict_flex_arrays > 0)
+ {
+ if (!c_dialect_cxx () && flag_iso && flag_isoc99 == 0)
+ {
+ flag_strict_flex_arrays = 0;
+ warning (0, "%<-fstrict-flex-arrays%> is not supported with a ISO C "
+ "before C99, ignored");
+ }
+ else if (!c_dialect_cxx () && !flag_iso && flag_isoc99 == 0 && flag_strict_flex_arrays == 3)
+ {
+ flag_strict_flex_arrays = 0;
+ warning (0, "%<-fstrict-flex-arrays=3%> is not supported with a "
+ "GNU extension GNU89, ignored");
+ }
+ else if (c_dialect_cxx () && flag_iso)
+ {
+ flag_strict_flex_arrays = 0;
+ warning (0, "%<-fstrict-flex-arrays%> is not supported with a ISO "
+ "C++, ignored");
+ }
+ else if (c_dialect_cxx () && !flag_iso && flag_strict_flex_arrays == 3)
+ {
+ flag_strict_flex_arrays = 0;
+ warning (0, "%<-fstrict-flex-arrays=3%> is not supported for C++ "
+ "with GNU extension, ignored");
+ }
+ }
+
/* -Woverlength-strings is off by default, but is enabled by -Wpedantic.
It is never enabled in C++, as the minimum limit is not normative
in that standard. */
@@ -2060,6 +2060,13 @@ fsized-deallocation
C++ ObjC++ Var(flag_sized_deallocation) Init(-1)
Enable C++14 sized deallocation support.
+fstrict-flex-arrays
+C C++ Common Alias(fstrict-flex-arrays=,3,0)
+
+fstrict-flex-arrays=
+C C++ Common Joined RejectNegative UInteger Var(flag_strict_flex_arrays) Init(0) IntegerRange(0,3)
+-fstrict-flex-arrays=<level> Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array in a stricter way. The default is treating all trailing arrays of structures as flexible arrays.
+
fsquangle
C++ ObjC++ WarnRemoved
@@ -4999,6 +4999,41 @@ set_array_declarator_inner (struct c_declarator *decl,
return decl;
}
+/* Determine whether TYPE is a ISO C99 flexible array memeber type "[]". */
+static bool
+flexible_array_member_type_p (const_tree type)
+{
+ if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE
+ && TYPE_SIZE (type) == NULL_TREE
+ && TYPE_DOMAIN (type) != NULL_TREE
+ && TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (type)) == NULL_TREE)
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+/* Determine whether TYPE is a one-element array type "[1]". */
+static bool
+one_element_array_type_p (const_tree type)
+{
+ if (TREE_CODE (type) != ARRAY_TYPE)
+ return false;
+ return integer_zerop (array_type_nelts (type));
+}
+
+/* Determine whether TYPE is a zero-length array type "[0]". */
+static bool
+zero_length_array_type_p (const_tree type)
+{
+ if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE)
+ if (tree type_size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type))
+ if ((integer_zerop (type_size))
+ && TYPE_DOMAIN (type) != NULL_TREE
+ && TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (type)) == NULL_TREE)
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
/* INIT is a constructor that forms DECL's initializer. If the final
element initializes a flexible array field, add the size of that
initializer to DECL's size. */
@@ -5013,10 +5048,7 @@ add_flexible_array_elts_to_size (tree decl, tree init)
elt = CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init)->last ().value;
type = TREE_TYPE (elt);
- if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE
- && TYPE_SIZE (type) == NULL_TREE
- && TYPE_DOMAIN (type) != NULL_TREE
- && TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (type)) == NULL_TREE)
+ if (flexible_array_member_type_p (type))
{
complete_array_type (&type, elt, false);
DECL_SIZE (decl)
@@ -8720,6 +8752,81 @@ finish_incomplete_vars (tree incomplete_vars, bool toplevel)
}
}
+
+/* Determine whether the FIELD_DECL X is a flexible array member according to
+ the following info:
+ A. whether the FIELD_DECL X is the last field of the DECL_CONTEXT;
+ B. whether the FIELD_DECL is an array that is declared as "[]", "[0]",
+ or "[1]";
+ C. flag_strict_flex_arrays;
+ D. the attribute strict_flex_array that is attached to the field
+ if presenting.
+ Return TRUE when it's a flexible array member, FALSE otherwise. */
+
+static bool
+is_flexible_array_member_p (bool is_last_field,
+ tree x)
+{
+ /* if not the last field, return false. */
+ if (!is_last_field)
+ return false;
+
+ /* if not an array field, return false. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (x)) != ARRAY_TYPE)
+ return false;
+
+ bool is_zero_length_array = zero_length_array_type_p (TREE_TYPE (x));
+ bool is_one_element_array = one_element_array_type_p (TREE_TYPE (x));
+ bool is_flexible_array = flexible_array_member_type_p (TREE_TYPE (x));
+
+ unsigned int strict_flex_array_level = flag_strict_flex_arrays;
+
+ tree attr_strict_flex_array = lookup_attribute ("strict_flex_arrays",
+ DECL_ATTRIBUTES (x));
+ /* if there is a strict_flex_array attribute attached to the field,
+ override the flag_strict_flex_arrays. */
+ if (attr_strict_flex_array)
+ {
+ /* get the value of the level first from the attribute. */
+ unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT attr_strict_flex_array_level = 0;
+ gcc_assert (TREE_VALUE (attr_strict_flex_array) != NULL_TREE);
+ attr_strict_flex_array = TREE_VALUE (attr_strict_flex_array);
+ gcc_assert (TREE_VALUE (attr_strict_flex_array) != NULL_TREE);
+ attr_strict_flex_array = TREE_VALUE (attr_strict_flex_array);
+ gcc_assert (tree_fits_uhwi_p (attr_strict_flex_array));
+ attr_strict_flex_array_level = tree_to_uhwi (attr_strict_flex_array);
+
+ /* the attribute has higher priority than flag_struct_flex_array. */
+ strict_flex_array_level = attr_strict_flex_array_level;
+ }
+
+ switch (strict_flex_array_level)
+ {
+ case 0:
+ /* default, all trailing arrays are flexiable array members. */
+ return true;
+ case 1:
+ /* Level 1: all "[1]", "[0]", and "[]" are flexiable array members. */
+ if (is_one_element_array)
+ return true;
+ /* FALLTHROUGH. */
+ case 2:
+ /* Level 2: all "[0]", and "[]" are flexiable array members. */
+ if (is_zero_length_array)
+ return true;
+ /* FALLTHROUGH. */
+ case 3:
+ /* Level 3: Only "[]" are flexible array members. */
+ if (is_flexible_array)
+ return true;
+ break;
+ default:
+ gcc_unreachable ();
+ }
+ return false;
+}
+
+
/* Fill in the fields of a RECORD_TYPE or UNION_TYPE node, T.
LOC is the location of the RECORD_TYPE or UNION_TYPE's definition.
FIELDLIST is a chain of FIELD_DECL nodes for the fields.
@@ -8781,6 +8888,11 @@ finish_struct (location_t loc, tree t, tree fieldlist, tree attributes,
bool saw_named_field = false;
for (x = fieldlist; x; x = DECL_CHAIN (x))
{
+ /* whether this field is the last field of the structure or union.
+ for UNION, any field is the last field of it. */
+ bool is_last_field = (DECL_CHAIN (x) == NULL_TREE)
+ || (TREE_CODE (t) == UNION_TYPE);
+
if (TREE_TYPE (x) == error_mark_node)
continue;
@@ -8819,10 +8931,7 @@ finish_struct (location_t loc, tree t, tree fieldlist, tree attributes,
DECL_PACKED (x) = 1;
/* Detect flexible array member in an invalid context. */
- if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (x)) == ARRAY_TYPE
- && TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (x)) == NULL_TREE
- && TYPE_DOMAIN (TREE_TYPE (x)) != NULL_TREE
- && TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (TREE_TYPE (x))) == NULL_TREE)
+ if (flexible_array_member_type_p (TREE_TYPE (x)))
{
if (TREE_CODE (t) == UNION_TYPE)
{
@@ -8830,7 +8939,7 @@ finish_struct (location_t loc, tree t, tree fieldlist, tree attributes,
"flexible array member in union");
TREE_TYPE (x) = error_mark_node;
}
- else if (DECL_CHAIN (x) != NULL_TREE)
+ else if (!is_last_field)
{
error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (x),
"flexible array member not at end of struct");
@@ -8850,6 +8959,9 @@ finish_struct (location_t loc, tree t, tree fieldlist, tree attributes,
pedwarn (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (x), OPT_Wpedantic,
"invalid use of structure with flexible array member");
+ /* Set DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY flag for FIELD_DECL x. */
+ DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (x) = !is_flexible_array_member_p (is_last_field, x);
+
if (DECL_NAME (x)
|| RECORD_OR_UNION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (x)))
saw_named_field = true;
@@ -5414,6 +5414,7 @@ trees_out::core_bools (tree t)
WB (t->decl_common.decl_by_reference_flag);
WB (t->decl_common.decl_read_flag);
WB (t->decl_common.decl_nonshareable_flag);
+ WB (t->decl_common.decl_not_flexarray);
}
if (CODE_CONTAINS_STRUCT (code, TS_DECL_WITH_VIS))
@@ -5558,6 +5559,7 @@ trees_in::core_bools (tree t)
RB (t->decl_common.decl_by_reference_flag);
RB (t->decl_common.decl_read_flag);
RB (t->decl_common.decl_nonshareable_flag);
+ RB (t->decl_common.decl_not_flexarray);
}
if (CODE_CONTAINS_STRUCT (code, TS_DECL_WITH_VIS))
@@ -7473,6 +7473,39 @@ This warning can be disabled by @option{-Wno-if-not-aligned}.
The @code{warn_if_not_aligned} attribute can also be used for types
(@pxref{Common Type Attributes}.)
+@cindex @code{strict_flex_arrays} variable attribute
+@item strict_flex_arrays (@var{level})
+The @code{strict_flex_arrays} attribute should be attached to the trailing
+array field of a structure. It specifies the level of strictness of
+treating the trailing array field of a structure as a flexible array
+member. @var{level} must be an integer betwen 0 to 3.
+
+@var{level}=0 is the least strict level, all trailing arrays of structures
+are treated as flexible array members. @var{level}=3 is the strictest level,
+only when the trailing array is declared as a flexible array member per C99
+standard onwards ([]), it is treated as a flexible array member.
+
+There are two more levels in between 0 and 3, which are provided to support
+older codes that use GCC zero-length array extension ([0]) or one-size array
+as flexible array member ([1]):
+When @var{level} is 1, the trailing array is treated as a flexible array member
+when it is declared as either "[]", "[0]", or "[1]";
+When @var{level} is 2, the trailing array is treated as a flexible array member
+when it is declared as either "[]", or "[0]".
+
+This attribute can be used with or without the @option{-fstrict-flex-arrays}.
+When both the attribute and the option present at the same time, the level of
+the strictness for the specific trailing array field is determined by the
+attribute.
+
+This attribute is only valid when flexible array member is supported in the
+language. For ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
+array member at all, this attribute will be invalid and a warning is issued.
+When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
+extension and one-size array are supported, as a result, @var{level}=3 will be
+invalid and a warning is issued.
+
+
@item alloc_size (@var{position})
@itemx alloc_size (@var{position-1}, @var{position-2})
@cindex @code{alloc_size} variable attribute
@@ -207,7 +207,8 @@ in the following sections.
-fopenmp -fopenmp-simd @gol
-fpermitted-flt-eval-methods=@var{standard} @gol
-fplan9-extensions -fsigned-bitfields -funsigned-bitfields @gol
--fsigned-char -funsigned-char -fsso-struct=@var{endianness}}
+-fsigned-char -funsigned-char -fstrict-flex-arrays[=@var{n}] @gol
+-fsso-struct=@var{endianness}}
@item C++ Language Options
@xref{C++ Dialect Options,,Options Controlling C++ Dialect}.
@@ -2826,6 +2827,37 @@ The type @code{char} is always a distinct type from each of
@code{signed char} or @code{unsigned char}, even though its behavior
is always just like one of those two.
+@item -fstrict-flex-arrays
+@opindex fstrict-flex-arrays
+@opindex fno-strict-flex-arrays
+Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array member in a
+stricter way.
+The positive form is equivalent to @option{-fstrict-flex-arrays=3}, which is the
+strictest. A trailing array is treated as a flexible array member only when it
+is declared as a flexible array member per C99 standard onwards.
+The negative form is equivalent to @option{-fstrict-flex-arrays=0}, which is the
+least strict. All trailing arrays of structures are treated as flexible array
+members.
+
+@item -fstrict-flex-arrays=@var{level}
+@opindex fstrict-flex-arrays=@var{level}
+Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array member in a
+stricter way. The value of @var{level} controls the level of strictness.
+
+The possible values of @var{level} are the same as for the
+@code{strict_flex_array} attribute (@pxref{Variable Attributes}).
+
+You can control this behavior for a specific trailing array field of a
+structure by using the variable attribute @code{strict_flex_array} attribute
+(@pxref{Variable Attributes}).
+
+This option is only valid when flexible array member is supported in the
+language. FOR ISO C before C99 and ISO C++, no language support for the flexible
+array member at all, this option will be invalid and a warning will be issued.
+When -std=gnu89 is specified or C++ with GNU extension, only zero-length array
+extension and one-size array are supported, as a result, @var{level}=3 will be
+invalid and a warning will be issued.
+
@item -fsso-struct=@var{endianness}
@opindex fsso-struct
Set the default scalar storage order of structures and unions to the
@@ -517,8 +517,12 @@ print_node (FILE *file, const char *prefix, tree node, int indent,
fprintf (file, " align:%d warn_if_not_align:%d",
DECL_ALIGN (node), DECL_WARN_IF_NOT_ALIGN (node));
if (code == FIELD_DECL)
- fprintf (file, " offset_align " HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED,
- DECL_OFFSET_ALIGN (node));
+ {
+ fprintf (file, " offset_align " HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED,
+ DECL_OFFSET_ALIGN (node));
+ fprintf (file, " decl_not_flexarray: %d",
+ DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (node));
+ }
if (code == FUNCTION_DECL && fndecl_built_in_p (node))
{
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of attribute strict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+
+int x __attribute__ ((strict_flex_arrays (1))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute may not be specified for 'x'" } */
+
+struct trailing {
+ int a;
+ int c __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays)); /* { dg-error "wrong number of arguments specified for 'strict_flex_arrays' attribute" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_1 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (2))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute may not be specified for a non array field" } */
+};
+
+extern int d;
+
+struct trailing_array_2 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[1] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (d))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute argument not an integer" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_array_3 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (5))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute argument '5' is not an integer constant between 0 and 3" } */
+};
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array for C++. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays -std=c++98" } */
+
+struct trailing_array {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (3))); /* { dg-warning "attribute ignored since it is not supported with a ISO C\\+\\+" } */
+};
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-warning "is not supported with a ISO C\\+\\+, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array for C++. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays -std=gnu++98" } */
+/* { dg-warning "'-fstrict-flex-arrays=3' is not supported for C\\+\\+ with GNU extension, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
+
+struct trailing_array {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (3))); /* { dg-warning "'strict_flex_arrays' = 3 attribute ignored since it is not supported for C\\+\\+ with GNU extension" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_array_1 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (2))); /* { dg-bogus "'strict_flex_arrays' = 3 attribute ignored since it is not supported for C\\+\\+ with GNU extension" } */
+};
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return a + 2;
+}
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays=2 -std=gnu++98" } */
+/* { dg-bogus "is not supported for C\\+\\+ with GNU extension, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return a + 2;
+}
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of attribute strict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+
+int x __attribute__ ((strict_flex_arrays (1))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute may not be specified for 'x'" } */
+
+struct trailing {
+ int a;
+ int c __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays)); /* { dg-error "wrong number of arguments specified for 'strict_flex_arrays' attribute" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_1 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (2))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute may not be specified for a non array field" } */
+};
+
+extern int d;
+
+struct trailing_array_2 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[1] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (d))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute argument not an integer" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_array_3 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (5))); /* { dg-error "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute argument '5' is not an integer constant between 0 and 3" } */
+};
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays -std=c89" } */
+/* { dg-warning "'-fstrict-flex-arrays' is not supported with a ISO C before C99, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
+
+struct trailing_array {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (3))); /* { dg-warning "'strict_flex_arrays' attribute ignored since it is not supported with a ISO C before C99" } */
+};
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return a + 2;
+}
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays -std=gnu89" } */
+/* { dg-warning "'-fstrict-flex-arrays=3' is not supported with a GNU extension GNU89, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
+
+struct trailing_array {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (3))); /* { dg-warning "'strict_flex_arrays' = 3 attribute ignored since it is not supported with a GNU extension GNU89" } */
+};
+
+struct trailing_array_1 {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ int c[0] __attribute ((strict_flex_arrays (2))); /* { dg-bogus "'strict_flex_arrays' = 3 attribute ignored since it is not supported with a GNU extension GNU89" } */
+};
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return a + 2;
+}
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* testing the correct usage of flag -fstrict_flex_array. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstrict-flex-arrays=2 -std=gnu89" } */
+/* { dg-bogus "is not supported with a GNU extension GNU89, ignored" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
+
+
+int foo(int a)
+{
+ return a + 2;
+}
@@ -1813,7 +1813,10 @@ struct GTY(()) tree_decl_common {
TYPE_WARN_IF_NOT_ALIGN. */
unsigned int warn_if_not_align : 6;
- /* 14 bits unused. */
+ /* In FIELD_DECL, this is DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY. */
+ unsigned int decl_not_flexarray : 1;
+
+ /* 13 bits unused. */
/* UID for points-to sets, stable over copying from inlining. */
unsigned int pt_uid;
@@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ unpack_ts_decl_common_value_fields (struct bitpack_d *bp, tree expr)
else
SET_DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED (expr, val);
expr->decl_common.off_align = bp_unpack_value (bp, 8);
+ DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (expr) = (unsigned) bp_unpack_value (bp, 1);
}
else if (VAR_P (expr))
@@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ pack_ts_decl_common_value_fields (struct bitpack_d *bp, tree expr)
else
bp_pack_value (bp, DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED (expr), 1);
bp_pack_value (bp, expr->decl_common.off_align, 8);
+ bp_pack_value (bp, DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (expr), 1);
}
else if (VAR_P (expr))
@@ -12678,14 +12678,30 @@ array_ref_up_bound (tree exp)
}
/* Returns true if REF is an array reference, component reference,
- or memory reference to an array at the end of a structure.
- If this is the case, the array may be allocated larger
- than its upper bound implies. */
+ or memory reference to an array whose actual size might be larger
+ than its upper bound implies, there are multiple cases:
+ A. a ref to a flexible array member at the end of a structure;
+ B. a ref to an array with a different type against the original decl;
+ for example:
+ short a[16] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 };
+ (*((char(*)[16])&a[0]))[i+8]
+
+ C. a ref to an array that was passed as a parameter;
+ for example:
+
+ int test (uint8_t *p, uint32_t t[1][1], int n) {
+ for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++, p++)
+ t[i][0] = ...;
+
+ FIXME, the name of this routine need to be changed to be more accurate. */
bool
array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
{
- tree atype;
+ /* the TYPE for this array referece. */
+ tree atype = NULL_TREE;
+ /* the FIELD_DECL for the array field in the containing structure. */
+ tree afield_decl = NULL_TREE;
if (TREE_CODE (ref) == ARRAY_REF
|| TREE_CODE (ref) == ARRAY_RANGE_REF)
@@ -12695,7 +12711,10 @@ array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
}
else if (TREE_CODE (ref) == COMPONENT_REF
&& TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (ref, 1))) == ARRAY_TYPE)
- atype = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (ref, 1));
+ {
+ atype = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (ref, 1));
+ afield_decl = TREE_OPERAND (ref, 1);
+ }
else if (TREE_CODE (ref) == MEM_REF)
{
tree arg = TREE_OPERAND (ref, 0);
@@ -12707,6 +12726,7 @@ array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
if (tree fld = last_field (argtype))
{
atype = TREE_TYPE (fld);
+ afield_decl = fld;
if (TREE_CODE (atype) != ARRAY_TYPE)
return false;
if (VAR_P (arg) && DECL_SIZE (fld))
@@ -12760,13 +12780,16 @@ array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
ref = TREE_OPERAND (ref, 0);
}
- /* The array now is at struct end. Treat flexible arrays as
+ gcc_assert (!afield_decl
+ || (afield_decl && TREE_CODE (afield_decl) == FIELD_DECL));
+
+ /* The array now is at struct end. Treat flexible array member as
always subject to extend, even into just padding constrained by
an underlying decl. */
if (! TYPE_SIZE (atype)
|| ! TYPE_DOMAIN (atype)
|| ! TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (atype)))
- return true;
+ return afield_decl ? !DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (afield_decl) : true;
/* If the reference is based on a declared entity, the size of the array
is constrained by its given domain. (Do not trust commons PR/69368). */
@@ -12788,9 +12811,9 @@ array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
if (TREE_CODE (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (atype))) != INTEGER_CST
|| TREE_CODE (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (atype))) != INTEGER_CST
|| TREE_CODE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (atype))) != INTEGER_CST)
- return true;
+ return afield_decl ? !DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (afield_decl) : true;
if (! get_addr_base_and_unit_offset (ref_to_array, &offset))
- return true;
+ return afield_decl ? !DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (afield_decl) : true;
/* If at least one extra element fits it is a flexarray. */
if (known_le ((wi::to_offset (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (atype)))
@@ -12798,12 +12821,12 @@ array_at_struct_end_p (tree ref)
+ 2)
* wi::to_offset (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (atype))),
wi::to_offset (DECL_SIZE_UNIT (ref)) - offset))
- return true;
+ return afield_decl ? !DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (afield_decl) : true;
return false;
}
- return true;
+ return afield_decl ? !DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY (afield_decl) : true;
}
/* Return a tree representing the offset, in bytes, of the field referenced
@@ -2993,6 +2993,12 @@ extern void decl_value_expr_insert (tree, tree);
#define DECL_PADDING_P(NODE) \
(FIELD_DECL_CHECK (NODE)->decl_common.decl_flag_3)
+/* Used in a FIELD_DECL to indicate whether this field is not a flexible
+ array member. This is only valid for the last array type field of a
+ structure. */
+#define DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY(NODE) \
+ (FIELD_DECL_CHECK (NODE)->decl_common.decl_not_flexarray)
+
/* A numeric unique identifier for a LABEL_DECL. The UID allocation is
dense, unique within any one function, and may be used to index arrays.
If the value is -1, then no UID has been assigned. */
@@ -5531,10 +5537,10 @@ extern tree component_ref_field_offset (tree);
returns null. */
enum struct special_array_member
{
- none, /* Not a special array member. */
- int_0, /* Interior array member with size zero. */
- trail_0, /* Trailing array member with size zero. */
- trail_1 /* Trailing array member with one element. */
+ none, /* Not a special array member. */
+ int_0, /* Interior array member with size zero. */
+ trail_0, /* Trailing array member with size zero. */
+ trail_1 /* Trailing array member with one element. */
};
/* Return the size of the member referenced by the COMPONENT_REF, using