On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> gcc-7 notices that the pin_table is an array of 16-bit numbers, >> but we assume it can be printed as a two-character hexadecimal >> string: >> >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c: In function >> 'acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupt': >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:24: warning: '%02X' directive writing >> between 2 and 4 bytes into a region of size 3 [-Wformat-overflow=] >> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X", >> ^~~~ >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:20: note: directive argument in the >> range [0, 65535] >> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X", >> ^~~~~~~~~ >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:206:3: note: 'sprintf' output between 5 >> and 7 bytes into a destination of size 5 >> sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X", >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> agpio->triggering == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 'E' : 'L', >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> pin); >> ~~~~ > > > This is obviously a false positive warning. > > Here we have > int pin = u16 pin_table[0] <= 255 (implying >= 0). > > I see few options how to make it more clear > 1) your proposal; > 2) use "%02hhX" instead; > 3) use if (ret >= 0 && ret <= 255) condition. > > I would choose one of the 2-3. > > In case gcc will complain about 3), file a bug to gcc crazy warning. Makes sense. I didn't remember the syntax for 2) and couldn't find it in the man page when I first looked. This seems like a good solution here. I'm pretty sure I tried 3) a few times when the warning first showed up last year, but couldn't get that to work. Filing a gcc bug also seems like a good idea, but I should first see if it's already fixed. The version I use for testing at the moment is from late April, and others may have complained about that already. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html