https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118004
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3) > Making the entire ... access (read_only) would be incorrect, considering the > argument corresponding to %n should be access (write_only) instead. > > So we still need to special case __builtin_printf. I didn't know about %n. Then fixing this becomes much much harder and the solution even more niche and less useful in general.
