This doesn't really belong in our testsuite, because the sole purpose of the new test is to find bugs in the Glibc wrappers (like the one linked below). But maybe it's a kindness to do it in our testsuite, because we already have this test in place, and one Glibc bug was already found thanks to Sam running the existing test with _FORTIFY_SOURCE defined.
Should we do this? -- >8 -- Add a new testcase that repeats 17_intro/names.cc but with _FORTIFY_SOURCE defined, to find problems in Glibc fortify wrappers like https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32052 (which is fixed now). libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: PR libstdc++/116210 * testsuite/17_intro/names.cc (sz): Undef for versions of Glibc that use it in the fortify wrappers. * testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc: New test. --- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc | 7 +++++++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+) create mode 100644 libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc index 6b9a3639aad..bbf45b93dee 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc @@ -377,4 +377,11 @@ #undef y #endif +#if defined __GLIBC_PREREQ && defined _FORTIFY_SOURCE +# if __GLIBC_PREREQ(2,35) && ! __GLIBC_PREREQ(2,41) +// https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32052 +# undef sz +# endif +#endif + #include <bits/stdc++.h> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..c975412074b --- /dev/null +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names_fortify.cc @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +// { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } +// { dg-add-options no_pch } + +#define _FORTIFY_SOURCE 2 +// Now we can define the macros to poison uses of non-reserved names: +#include "names.cc" -- 2.46.1
