[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] tools/tests/cpu-policy: disable -Wformat-overflow
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] tools/tests/cpu-policy: disable -Wformat-overflow"): > Would you mind clarifying which 12 you mean to change to 13? > The one in "%.12s" would, if changed and afaict, then > legitimately trigger the warning. And we've already objected > to the array to get grown. I meant the array. I missed that objection. I just went and read the thread tests/cpu-policy: fix format-overflow warning by null terminating strings and it did conclude that the compiler was wrong to complain. But for me it doesn't follow that the original code is necessarily the best way of doing things, and I didn't see anyone giving an argument why simply increasing the array was a bad idea. C "prefers" null-terminated strings in that they work somewhat better with a variety of primitives. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |