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@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
