On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 15:05, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org> wrote: > > On 2024-10-04 07:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > 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 > > We've backported the fix to stable branches, so the version check isn't > really that reliable.
Yeah, but it doesn't matter if we #undef sz on some Glibc systems that don't actually have the bug.
