in reply to Re^7: Influencing the Gconvert macro
in thread Influencing the Gconvert macro

Do you know how to reproduce the warnings when compiling that C script ?

I didn't want to die wondering (even if it killed me), so I eventually came up with this C program that reproduces the warnings:
/* try.c */ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> void foo(double); int main(void) { /* The value assigned to 'd' has no * * effect on the warning message. */ double d = 0.; foo(d); } void foo(double d) { char buf[127]; sprintf (buf, "%.*g\n", 126, d); printf("%s\n", buf); }
Build with: gcc -o try.exe try.c -Wformat-overflow
That compilation produces the following noise:
try.c: In function ‘foo’: try.c:17:17: warning: ‘%.*g’ directive writing between 1 and 133 bytes + into a region of size 127 [-Wformat-overflow=] sprintf (buf, "%.*g", 126, d); ^~~~ try.c:17:16: note: assuming directive output of 132 bytes sprintf (buf, "%.*g", 126, d); ^~~~~~ try.c:17:2: note: ‘sprintf’ output between 2 and 134 bytes into a dest +ination of size 127 sprintf (buf, "%.*g", 126, d); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
which is essentially the same as the warnings I received when compiling perl.

Apparently, the perl compilation process (with -O2 optimization) determines that the number of digits being requested is 126.
It is then correctly calculated that the number of bytes written will be between 1 and 133 - which allows for the decimal point, a possible leading '-', a possible 'e', and a possible exponent of (maximum) size of 4.
In those warnings, you'll see that the "1 and 133" changes to "2 and 134" - when the terminating NULL byte is included in the count.

I haven't investigated just how the perl source compilation process makes the determination that the digit count has to be 126. It might just be a bug in the -O2 optimization - certainly, no warnings are emitted if the optimization level is reduced to less that -O2.

As I mentioned previously, if the number of digits specified in the "%g" formatting is higher than 91, then the processing switches to a different block of code, so the buffer size of 127 is certainly large enough.
I haven't looked into how or why that change occurs when digits > 91. It's not often that people will request more digits than 91 - so I'm not presently inclined to wade through the whys and wherefores of that processing path. It seems to be working correctly, and IMO that's good enough for now, at least.

Update: Now that I understand how the warning is being created, I think it should be fairly simple to amend the perl source so that this warning is eliminated.