On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > Thanks. How about the attached simpler patch instead? Since grep always > uses glibc-compatible regex (and supplies its own substitute when the system > lacks one), and since all known glibc-compatible implementations fail, it > should be safe to assume that grep will fail on the new test. We can worry > about dealing with test successes later, when the bug gets fixed (and > presumably grep's substitute regex implementation will get fixed too).
Hi Paul, Thanks for the review and suggestion. But what about configure's --without-included-regex option? With it, the test may well pass (counted as a failure, here) on systems without glibc.
