[Bug middle-end/101134] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning about non-existent overflow

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134

--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Changing the warning text from "does X" to "may do X" wouldn't help because all
instances of it (or all warnings) would have to use the latter form, and that's
already implied by the former.  Every GCC warning already means "something
looks fishy here" and not "this is definitely a bug."  Not just because not
every suspicious piece of code is necessarily a bug, or because no warning is
completely free of false positives, but also because every flow-sensitive
warning also depends on whether control can reach the construct it warns about
(as in: is the function where X occurs ever called?)  Users who expect
otherwise simply need to adjust their expectations (as per the manual).