Re: format string is not a string literal

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> wrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>     See the additional comments from the llvm.org clang developers at...
>>>
>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22701#c5
>>
>> Then put this warning under a different flag. Anyways clang is broken and gdb should not change due to a broken compiler.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>
> I would not say that clang is broken or that the warning is unclear.
> The flag is -Wformat-nonliteral and the warning message is "format
> string is not a string  literal". I don't know how you can be more
> clear and direct about the fact that the format string is not a string
> literal. Looking at the code, we observe that clang is right (the
> format string is indeed not a string literal). With the proper
> function attributes, the compiler could do better checks and prevent
> programming mistakes. Since clang pointed out this low-hanging fruit
> improvement to gdb's code, why shouldn't we take advantage of it?
>
> Anyway, Jack, you are welcome to submit a patch for this if you feel
> like it and/or file a bug if it is not already done.


Except GCC documents this options differently than clang implements:
-Wformat-nonliteralIf -Wformat is specified, also warn if the format
string is not a string literal and so cannot be checked, unless the
format function takes its format arguments as a va_list.


Notice the last part of the documentation.

So this again is clang implements a GCC option but does not follow the
documentation of GCC.
How does clang document this option?

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> Simon