[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-24 Thread rjones at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones --- I switched the warning off in libguestfs, but before it was switched off I got all these warnings (errors in fact because we use -Werror in development builds). qemuopts.c: In function 'qemuopts_to_conf

[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-23 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- For some background into the source of the limit see the discussion below: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01772.html The warning is based on the C limit in the discussion and the Glibc bug/lim

[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-22 Thread fw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Rather than warning about this the bugs should be fixed, there is no reason > why glibc needs to malloc memory for these cases. I completely agree. The warning

[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Rather than warning about this the bugs should be fixed, there is no reason why glibc needs to malloc memory for these cases. For "%.65535s" I don't actually see where it would allocate memory, I see memory

[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-22 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #2 from Martin Seb

[Bug c/88993] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits

2019-01-22 Thread rjones at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Sorry, forgot the version. It's: gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64