On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> what about configure's --without-included-regex option?
>> With it, the test may well pass (counted as a failure, here) on
>> systems without glibc.
>
>
> Grep uses the glibc interface for regular expressions, and I ex
Jim Meyering wrote:
what about configure's --without-included-regex option?
With it, the test may well pass (counted as a failure, here) on
systems without glibc.
Grep uses the glibc interface for regular expressions, and I expect that
every current implementation of that interface has the bug
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Paul Eggert 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
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
Paul found an ugly bug in glibc's regex.
Here's a test to trigger that from grep:
0001-tests-add-expect-to-fail-test-for-a-glibc-regexp-bug.patch
Description: Binary data
