Thread: Back-patching -Wno-format-truncation.

Hello.  (added Tom in Cc:)

If I build the past versions from 9.4 to 9.6 with GCC8, I find it
really annoying to see the build screen filled with massive number of
warnings of format-truncation, stringop-truncation and
format-overflow.

Just applying the commit 416e3e318c as-is silences the first two.

The last one is silenced by applying 5d923eb29b.

The commit message is sayiing that it is back-patched back at least to
9.4, but it seem that the versions from 9.4 to 9.6 haven't got the
patches.

Tom, would you back-patch the two commits to from 9.4 to 9.6?

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
diff --git a/contrib/pg_xlogdump/compat.c b/contrib/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
index 6ca7012fd9..3f68db7fdf 100644
--- a/contrib/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
+++ b/contrib/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
@@ -64,9 +64,10 @@ timestamptz_to_str(TimestampTz dt)
     strftime(zone, sizeof(zone), "%Z", ltime);
 
 #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
-    sprintf(buf, "%s.%06d %s", ts, (int) (dt % USECS_PER_SEC), zone);
+    snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s.%06d %s",
+             ts, (int) (dt % USECS_PER_SEC), zone);
 #else
-    sprintf(buf, "%s.%.6f %s", ts, fabs(dt - floor(dt)), zone);
+    snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s.%.6f %s", ts, fabs(dt - floor(dt)), zone);
 #endif
 
     return buf;
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/storage.c b/src/backend/catalog/storage.c
index 0fc48dc542..c183800c63 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/storage.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/storage.c
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ typedef struct PendingRelDelete
 
 /*
  * This might look silly, but this is intended to unify the back-patched code
- * with other versions.
+ * against the master branch.
  */
 typedef struct pendingSync
 {
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_xlogdump/compat.c b/src/bin/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
index 845c2e5234..165c2ae544 100644
--- a/src/bin/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_xlogdump/compat.c
@@ -64,9 +64,10 @@ timestamptz_to_str(TimestampTz dt)
     strftime(zone, sizeof(zone), "%Z", ltime);
 
 #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
-    sprintf(buf, "%s.%06d %s", ts, (int) (dt % USECS_PER_SEC), zone);
+    snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s.%06d %s",
+             ts, (int) (dt % USECS_PER_SEC), zone);
 #else
-    sprintf(buf, "%s.%.6f %s", ts, fabs(dt - floor(dt)), zone);
+    snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s.%.6f %s", ts, fabs(dt - floor(dt)), zone);
 #endif
 
     return buf;

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> If I build the past versions from 9.4 to 9.6 with GCC8, I find it
> really annoying to see the build screen filled with massive number of
> warnings of format-truncation, stringop-truncation and
> format-overflow.

> Just applying the commit 416e3e318c as-is silences the first two.

> The last one is silenced by applying 5d923eb29b.

> The commit message is sayiing that it is back-patched back at least to
> 9.4, but it seem that the versions from 9.4 to 9.6 haven't got the
> patches.

> Tom, would you back-patch the two commits to from 9.4 to 9.6?

Uh ... it sure looks to me like they were back-patched as advertised.
Do you not have these back-branch commits?

Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Branch: master Release: REL_11_BR [e71658523] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
Branch: REL_10_STABLE Release: REL_10_5 [416e3e318] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
Branch: REL9_6_STABLE Release: REL9_6_10 [119290be6] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
Branch: REL9_5_STABLE Release: REL9_5_14 [14b69a532] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
Branch: REL9_4_STABLE Release: REL9_4_19 [817d605e4] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
Branch: REL9_3_STABLE Release: REL9_3_24 [ec5547e56] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400

    Use -Wno-format-truncation and -Wno-stringop-truncation, if available.

Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Branch: master Release: REL_11_BR [5d923eb29] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
Branch: REL_10_STABLE Release: REL_10_5 [189332615] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
Branch: REL9_6_STABLE Release: REL9_6_10 [8870e2978] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
Branch: REL9_5_STABLE Release: REL9_5_14 [f3be5d3e7] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
Branch: REL9_4_STABLE Release: REL9_4_19 [fd079dd09] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
Branch: REL9_3_STABLE Release: REL9_3_24 [3243cbc08] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400

    Use snprintf not sprintf in pg_waldump's timestamptz_to_str.

            regards, tom lane

At Tue, 03 Mar 2020 18:44:16 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in 
> Uh ... it sure looks to me like they were back-patched as advertised.
> Do you not have these back-branch commits?
> 
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Branch: master Release: REL_11_BR [e71658523] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> Branch: REL_10_STABLE Release: REL_10_5 [416e3e318] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> Branch: REL9_6_STABLE Release: REL9_6_10 [119290be6] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> Branch: REL9_5_STABLE Release: REL9_5_14 [14b69a532] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> Branch: REL9_4_STABLE Release: REL9_4_19 [817d605e4] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> Branch: REL9_3_STABLE Release: REL9_3_24 [ec5547e56] 2018-06-16 15:34:07 -0400
> 
>     Use -Wno-format-truncation and -Wno-stringop-truncation, if available.
> 
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Branch: master Release: REL_11_BR [5d923eb29] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> Branch: REL_10_STABLE Release: REL_10_5 [189332615] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> Branch: REL9_6_STABLE Release: REL9_6_10 [8870e2978] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> Branch: REL9_5_STABLE Release: REL9_5_14 [f3be5d3e7] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> Branch: REL9_4_STABLE Release: REL9_4_19 [fd079dd09] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> Branch: REL9_3_STABLE Release: REL9_3_24 [3243cbc08] 2018-06-16 14:45:47 -0400
> 
>     Use snprintf not sprintf in pg_waldump's timestamptz_to_str.

Mmm... I should have created my working trees from stale tracking
branches. I confirmed that they are surely there. Sorry for the bogus
report and thanks for the reply.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center