On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 09:47, <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>
> ../hw/arm/digic.c: In function ‘digic_init’:
> ../hw/arm/digic.c:45:54: error: ‘%d’ directive output may be truncated
> writing between 1 and 11 bytes into a region of size 5
> [-Werror=format-truncation=]
> 45 | snprintf(name, DIGIC_TIMER_NAME_MLEN, "timer[%d]", i);
> | ^~
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/arm/digic.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/digic.c b/hw/arm/digic.c
> index 614232165cdc..6df554797734 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/digic.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/digic.c
> @@ -39,10 +39,7 @@ static void digic_init(Object *obj)
> object_initialize_child(obj, "cpu", &s->cpu,
> ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("arm946"));
>
> for (i = 0; i < DIGIC4_NB_TIMERS; i++) {
> -#define DIGIC_TIMER_NAME_MLEN 11
> - char name[DIGIC_TIMER_NAME_MLEN];
> -
> - snprintf(name, DIGIC_TIMER_NAME_MLEN, "timer[%d]", i);
> + g_autofree char *name = g_strdup_printf("timer[%d]", i);
> object_initialize_child(obj, name, &s->timer[i], TYPE_DIGIC_TIMER);
> }
This is a clear compiler false positive, given that DIGIC4_NB_TIMERS is 3.
But this is a nicer way to write the code than the static array anyway.
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
thanks
-- PMM
