https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Andrew, I agree with tracking the improvement we discussed. Because it's not
directly related to the warning for which this bug was opened (the 4095 limit),
and implementing it won't prevent this warning. I've raised pr104922 to track
it.
I'm also open to revisiting the design behind this instance of the warning (the
4095 limit), reconsidering whether it's still useful (it was motivated by some
old sprintf implementations failing for large amounts of output -- see for
example https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441945), or perhaps
exposing it under a target hook. But to avoid confusion I'd prefer to do that
separately of this bug report. It doesn't illustrate a false positive or
reflect a bug in the warning.
