> The code is already safe. It is reasonably safe(*) and triggers a warning. That's a good reason to silence the warning. Otherwise people might fall into a habit of ignoring warnings [that may point to actual problems]. I just pointed out a safe way to silence the warning, without it potentially blowing up in a changed world.
(*) looking at POSIX, snprintf is not required to return -1, but only "a negative value". So it's not truly safe either way.
