From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gZIOI-0002d9-Ah for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:38:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gZIOH-0001CA-NR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:38:42 -0500 References: <20181218110333.22558-1-philmd@redhat.com> <20181218092648-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <028f1498-d0bc-e920-1c7c-9a1f0bdded58@redhat.com> <20181218095334-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <42bc04b0-71b7-c9aa-554e-a337351b1e7e@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:38:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181218095334-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix strncpy() warnings for GCC8 new -Wstringop-truncation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ben Pye , Stefan Weil , Howard Spoelstra , Jeff Cody , =?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=a9dric_Le_Goater?= , Thomas Huth , Liu Yuan , Igor Mammedov , Max Reitz , Kevin Wolf , Eric Blake , =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= , David Hildenbrand , David Gibson , Markus Armbruster , qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , 1803872@bugs.launchpad.net, Juan Quintela On 18/12/18 15:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:45:08PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 18/12/18 15:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Do you happen to know why does it build fine with >>> Gcc 8.2.1? >>> >>> Reading the GCC manual it seems that >>> there is a "nostring" attribute that means >>> "might not be 0 terminated". >>> I think we should switch to that which fixes the warning >>> but also warns if someone tries to misuse these >>> as C-strings. >>> >>> Seems to be a better option, does it not? >>> >>> >> >> Using strpadcpy is clever and self-documenting, though. We have it >> already, so why not use it. >> >> Paolo > > The advantage of nonstring is that it will catch attempts to > use these fields with functions that expect a 0 terminated string. > > strpadcpy will instead just silence the warning. Ah, I see. We could also do both, that's a matter of taste. Paolo