[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #16) > The warning has been relaxed for GCC 9 in r269125. Thanks, I can confirm elfutils builds fine without warnings with GCC 9 now.

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Bug 88835 depends on bug 88993, which changed state. Bug 88993 Summary: [9 Regression] GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc limits https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Feb 22 17:38:11 2019 New Revision: 269125 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269125=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/88993 - GCC 9 -Wformat-overflow=2 should reflect real libc

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #12) > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11) > > Ah, but you mentioned elfutilts, not binutils. I've now downloaded and > > built elfutils-0.175. It took a

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #12 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11) > Ah, but you mentioned elfutilts, not binutils. I've now downloaded and > built elfutils-0.175. It took a bit more effort because --disable-werror > doesn't

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Ah, but you mentioned elfutilts, not binutils. I've now downloaded and built elfutils-0.175. It took a bit more effort because --disable-werror doesn't work there but once I got past that I just got the

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- I've built the top of binutils-gdb with the patch referenced in comment #8 applied and with -Wformat-overflow=2 and -Wformat-truncation=2 and got the following breakdown: Diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8) > The patch I posted for the related pr88993 also relaxes this warning for > printf and fprintf: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00224.html > > Like

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||88993 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard --- Is this a regression that will probably be fixed for GCC 9.1 or should we be adding workaround to the code. Currently elfutils won't build on distros that started using the GCC 9.0 prerelease on 32bit

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbyszek at in dot waw.pl

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- > warning from the translation unit below. It doesn't seem to correspond to > the code pointed to in the discussion > (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11369#issuecomment-453044884): > the mfree()

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Martin, please also let me know what specifically about the warning you find misleading so I can make it better.

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||85741 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 45598 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45598=edit One another-test case I see one another test-case that comes from here:

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW See Also|