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

2019-02-12 Thread sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Franz Sirl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12

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

2019-02-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- There is no reliable way. The limit may not be fixed, or can be different for different directives or format strings. A test case like the one in the Red Hat bug #441945 linked at comment #2 might tell you

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

2019-02-11 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

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

2019-02-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

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

2019-02-04 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor

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

2019-02-04 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

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

2019-01-24 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|