The -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 is the most restrictive type of flex arrays.
No number, including 0, is allowed in the FAM. In the cases where a "0"
is used, the resulting size is the same as if a zero-sized object were
substituted.
This is needed for proper _FORTIFY_SOURCE coverage in the Linux kernel,
among other reasons. So while the only reason for specifying a
zero-length array at the end of a structure is for specify a FAM,
treating it as such will cause _FORTIFY_SOURCE not to work correctly;
__builtin_object_size will report -1 instead of 0 for a destination
buffer size to keep any kernel internals from using the deprecated
members as fake FAMs.
For example:
struct broken {
int foo;
int fake_fam[0];
struct something oops;
};
There have been bugs where the above struct was created because "oops"
was added after "fake_fam" by someone not realizing. Under
__FORTIFY_SOURCE, doing:
memcpy(p->fake_fam, src, len);
raises no warnings when __builtin_object_size(p->fake_fam, 1) returns -1
and may stomp on "oops."
Omitting a warning when using the (invalid) zero-length array is how GCC
treats -fstrict-flex-arrays=3. A warning in that situation is likely an
irritant, because requesting this option level is explicitly requesting
this behavior.
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134902
The diagnostic was confusing and reporting that an array contains far
more elements than it is defined to have, due to casting.
For example, this code:
double foo[4096];
((char*)foo)[sizeof(foo)];
warns that the "index 32768 is past the end of the array (which contains
32768 elements)."
Reviewed By: serge-sans-paille, aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135920
The test to check if an array was a FAM in the context of array bound checking
and strict-flex-arrays=1 was inverted.
As a by product, improve test coverage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132853
Some code [0] consider that trailing arrays are flexible, whatever their size.
Support for these legacy code has been introduced in
f8f632498307d22e10fab0704548b270b15f1e1e but it prevents evaluation of
__builtin_object_size and __builtin_dynamic_object_size in some legit cases.
Introduce -fstrict-flex-arrays=<n> to have stricter conformance when it is
desirable.
n = 0: current behavior, any trailing array member is a flexible array. The default.
n = 1: any trailing array member of undefined, 0 or 1 size is a flexible array member
n = 2: any trailing array member of undefined or 0 size is a flexible array member
This takes into account two specificities of clang: array bounds as macro id
disqualify FAM, as well as non standard layout.
Similar patch for gcc discuss here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
[0] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/developers-handbook/sockets/#sockets-essential-functions
This reverts D126864 and related fixes.
This reverts commit 572b08790a69f955ae0cbb1b4a7d4a215f15dad9.
This reverts commit 886715af962de2c92fac4bd37104450345711e4a.
Some code [0] consider that trailing arrays are flexible, whatever their size.
Support for these legacy code has been introduced in
f8f632498307d22e10fab0704548b270b15f1e1e but it prevents evaluation of
__builtin_object_size and __builtin_dynamic_object_size in some legit cases.
Introduce -fstrict-flex-arrays=<n> to have stricter conformance when it is
desirable.
n = 0: current behavior, any trailing array member is a flexible array. The default.
n = 1: any trailing array member of undefined, 0 or 1 size is a flexible array member
n = 2: any trailing array member of undefined or 0 size is a flexible array member
n = 3: any trailing array member of undefined size is a flexible array member (strict c99 conformance)
Similar patch for gcc discuss here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
[0] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/developers-handbook/sockets/#sockets-essential-functions
