https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > > 1) use the %.508s directive instead of %s, or > > 2) verify the snprintf return value is less than 512. > > Whoops. An off-by-one error. I meant to follow that by: > > > Of the two alternatives, (1) is the expected/recommended way to avoid both > > the truncation and the warning. (2) is a possible enhancement that could > > also be used to suppress the warning (along with changing the code). Thanks Martin for very verbose explanation. To be honest, I'm not much interested in this particular test-case as it comes from a random package in openSUSE that started to fail with new GCC version. I would incline to let this PR opened as a reminder that cooperation of string manipulation functions is needed to provide more precise warnings. I will probably choose to fix my concrete package with %.xs format.
