[Bug sanitizer/99814] regexec fails with -fsanitize=address

["marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99814

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-03-30

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thanks for the report. Hm, it's strange as we should request exactly this
version of the symbol through the following code path:

  COMMON_INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_GLIBC_VER_MIN(regexec, "GLIBC_2.3.4");            
\

#ifdef __GLIBC__
// If we could not find the versioned symbol, fall back to an unversioned
// lookup. This is needed to work around a GLibc bug that causes dlsym
// with RTLD_NEXT to return the oldest versioned symbol.
// See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14932.
// For certain symbols (e.g. regexec) we have to perform a versioned lookup,
// but that versioned symbol will only exist for architectures where the
// oldest Glibc version pre-dates support for that architecture.
// For example, regexec@GLIBC_2.3.4 exists on x86_64, but not RISC-V.
// See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920.
#define COMMON_INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_GLIBC_VER_MIN(fn, ver) \
  COMMON_INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_VER_UNVERSIONED_FALLBACK(fn, ver)
#else
#define COMMON_INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_GLIBC_VER_MIN(fn, ver) \
  COMMON_INTERCEPT_FUNCTION(fn)
#endif

#define ASAN_INTERCEPT_FUNC_VER_UNVERSIONED_FALLBACK(name, ver)              \
  do {                                                                       \
    if (!INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_VER(name, ver) && !INTERCEPT_FUNCTION(name))     \
      VReport(1, "AddressSanitizer: failed to intercept '%s@@%s' or '%s'\n", \
              #name, #ver, #name);                                           \
  } while (0)


Can you please debug if INTERCEPT_FUNCTION_VER really fails?
I'm sorry but I don't have a handy s390 machine.