Re: fixing more format truncation issues

On 3/15/18 12:12, Tom Lane wrote: > FWIW, I noticed while fooling with pre-release Fedora 28 that gcc 8.0.1 > emits a whole boatload of these warnings by default. I have some patches for that. I will send them in once gcc 8 is a bit closer to release. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: fixing more format truncation issues

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:12:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > FWIW, I noticed while fooling with pre-release Fedora 28 that gcc 8.0.1 > emits a whole boatload of these warnings by default. This patch doesn't > seem to have moved the needle very much, either. In a quick look, it > seemed like a lot

Re: fixing more format truncation issues

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/14/18 02:52, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Enabling them by default would generate some useless noise if the patch >> is let as-is as a couple of them are not addressed. Please see the full >> report attached. Is that intentional? I

Re: fixing more format truncation issues

On 3/14/18 02:52, Michael Paquier wrote: > Enabling them by default would generate some useless noise if the patch > is let as-is as a couple of them are not addressed. Please see the full > report attached. Is that intentional? I am using GCC 7.3 here. Well that's weird. Apparently, the

Re: fixing more format truncation issues

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:14:23PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > AFAICT, the issues addressed here either can't really happen without > trying very hard, or would cause harmless output truncation. Still, it > seems good to clean this up properly and not rely on made-up buffer size > guesses

fixing more format truncation issues

In 6275f5d28a1577563f53f2171689d4f890a46881, we fixed warnings from the options -Wformat-overflow and -Wformat-truncation, which are part of -Wall in gcc 7. Here, I propose to dial this up a bit by adding -Wformat-overflow=2 -Wformat-truncation=2, which use some more worst-case approaches for