On 06/14/2017 08:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I've looked at the patch and committed following change that makes > both tests pass. Scanning for [^:]* is weird, it would make more sense > to scan for [^]]*, but as only [0-9INV]* can appear there, I think it > doesn't hurt to be more precise.
Yes, we can be more precise. Thanks for the fix. Martin
