[PATCH] dlls/windows.globalization: don't allocate a partial structure

[Alexandre Julliard]

Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com> writes:

> On 3/23/22 14:05, Eric Pouech wrote:
>> 
>>> Well I think this makes the code very bloated, and if it is truly
>>> UB then we should instead find a way to use 0-sized arrays in a
>>> portable way.
>>>
>>> I believe 0 sized array for the last struct member is standard C99,
>>> so is there any compiler not supporting it yet (or some variation
>>> of it like with empty size)?
>> yes the so called "flexible array member" is c99 and seems to be 
>> supported by gcc, clang, msvc
>> but they don't seem to be accepted directly into wine (for now) (for 
>> example include/winnt.h see
>> https://source.winehq.org/source/include/winnt.h#5815)
>> (there are a few others instances in the same way)
>> 
>> there are a couple of 0-length array instances (mosts of them
>> protected by #ifdef _GNUC and fallback with 1 length array)
>> (and wine/msvcpdb.h uses them directly w/o fallbacks...)
>> 
>> I did a previous attempt with 0 length array for this but it never
>> landed 
>> (https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2022-February/207793.html)
>> 
>> so I'd wait for Alexandre's guidance on this
>> A+
>> 
>
> C99 flexible array is with empty size, not 0.
>
> From https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/nc6xGM5nh I don't see any compiler not
> supporting even both methods, though -pedantic emits a warning with 0 
> size (empty size is fine).
>
> It only tests some old GCC / Clang version as they don't provide old
> MSVC but maybe it's okay?

An empty size is probably OK to use at this point. It's not clear how
much benefit it brings though, because obviously 1-size arrays in public
structures can't be changed.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org