Huh, turns out that we do actually see a similar set of warnings before
and after this patch, they're just different warnings as a consequence
of my patch.
Given that these warnings only show up at W=1, is there any point in
further supressing them?
Before
------
In function ‘strncpy’,
inlined from ‘hdmi_spd_infoframe_init’ at /home/dja/dev/linux/linux/drivers/video/hdmi.c:230:2:
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:282:9: warning: ‘__builtin_strncpy’ specified bound 8 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
282 | return __builtin_strncpy(p, q, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In function ‘strncpy’,
inlined from ‘hdmi_spd_infoframe_init’ at /home/dja/dev/linux/linux/drivers/video/hdmi.c:231:2:
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:282:9: warning: ‘__builtin_strncpy’ specified bound 16 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
282 | return __builtin_strncpy(p, q, size);
After
-----
In function ‘strncpy’,
inlined from ‘hdmi_spd_infoframe_init’ at /home/dja/dev/linux/linux/drivers/video/hdmi.c:230:2:
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:297:30: warning: ‘__builtin_strncpy’ specified bound 8 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
297 | #define __underlying_strncpy __builtin_strncpy
| ^
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:307:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__underlying_strncpy’
307 | return __underlying_strncpy(p, q, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In function ‘strncpy’,
inlined from ‘hdmi_spd_infoframe_init’ at /home/dja/dev/linux/linux/drivers/video/hdmi.c:231:2:
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:297:30: warning: ‘__builtin_strncpy’ specified bound 16 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
297 | #define __underlying_strncpy __builtin_strncpy
| ^
/home/dja/dev/linux/linux/include/linux/string.h:307:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__underlying_strncpy’
307 | return __underlying_strncpy(p, q, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
