On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > 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
>
> We've backported the fix to stable branches, so the version check isn't
> really that reliable.
That doesn't matter that much. The worst that happens is that with those
older fixed glibc versions the testing will not test that symbol.
What is more important is that it is checked on the latest glibc,
so when people test gcc with that version, they'll notice if it regresses.
Jakub
