From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-74296-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 131011 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2016 22:54:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 130979 invoked by uid 89); 1 Nov 2016 22:54:09 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:1478039, Hx-languages-length:880, H*MI:sk:1478039, H*i:sk:1478039
X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:54:00 -0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Steve Ellcey <sellcey@caviumnetworks.com>
CC: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  Fix  warning from latest GCC in tst-printf.c
In-Reply-To: <1478039344.2891.50.camel@caviumnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611012253410.10022@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <1477003405.8523.21.camel@caviumnetworks.com>  <1478020891.2891.45.camel@caviumnetworks.com>  <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611011736580.21300@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <1478039344.2891.50.camel@caviumnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="-1152306461-750944716-1478040830=:10022"
X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To
 svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1)
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2

---1152306461-750944716-1478040830=:10022
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-length: 831

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Steve Ellcey wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-11-01 at 17:37 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Ping.  One of the snprintf statements in this test is using a %.999999u
> > > format so it is obvious that the test wants to test formats that would
> > > go beyond the limit of the snprintf buffer and so we should ignore the
> > > warnings in this test.
> > OK provided you've tested that this change works with older GCC that lack 
> > the new option (otherwise it would need to be conditional on the GCC 
> > version).
> 
> I did forget to check it with an older GCC and it does fail with GCC
> 5.4.  Here is a new version with a conditional.   Tested with GCC 5.4
> and GCC 7.0 (prerelease).
> 
> Ok to checkin?

OK.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
---1152306461-750944716-1478040830=:10022--