--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ if test $gl_gcc_warnings != no; then
# FP in careadlinkat.c w/gcc 10.0.1 20200205
gl_WARN_ADD([-Wno-return-local-addr])
+ # FIXME: remove this line when gcc improves
+ # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
+ # FP wth -O0 in nstrftime.c w/gcc 12, and 13 at least
+ gl_WARN_ADD([-Wno-stringop-overflow])
This patch doesn't look right either. First,
<https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443> is a meta-bug
report, and so is too vague for anybody to see what problem the FIXME is
referring to. The FIXME should refer to a specific GCC bug report, and
if no such bug report exists one should be created.
Second, if the bug occurs with -O0 but not with -O2, then gl_WARN_ADD
should be invoked only if -O0 is specified. -Wstringop-overflow is a
useful option and should not be suppressed for ordinary (-O2) builds
simply because there's a problem in -O0 builds.
More generally, I don't think we should spend much time worrying about
configuring with --enable-gcc-warnings and compiling with -O0. With
today's GCC it's better to say, "don't do that". That is, either
configure with a high quality of static checking, with
--enable-gcc-warnings; or configure with easy-to-debug options like
CFLAGS="-O0". The current GCC can't do both well, and there's little
sense making application code less reliable in order to try to make GCC
do a little bit better for this poorly-supported combination.
