On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:39 AM Li-Wen Hsu <lw...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:50 AM Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:47 PM Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:53 PM Li-Wen Hsu <lw...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:22 AM Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Author: kevans > > > > > Date: Wed Jul 29 23:21:56 2020 > > > > > New Revision: 363679 > > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/363679 > > > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > regex(3): Interpret many escaped ordinary characters as EESCAPE > > > > > > > > > > In IEEE 1003.1-2008 [1] and earlier revisions, BRE/ERE grammar > > > > > allows for > > > > > any character to be escaped, but "ORD_CHAR preceded by an unescaped > > > > > <backslash> character [gives undefined results]". > > > > > > > > > > Historically, we've interpreted an escaped ordinary character as the > > > > > ordinary character itself. This becomes problematic when some > > > > > extensions > > > > > give special meanings to an otherwise ordinary character > > > > > (e.g. GNU's \b, \s, \w), meaning we may have two different valid > > > > > interpretations of the same sequence. > > > > > > > > > > To make this easier to deal with and given that the standard calls > > > > > this > > > > > undefined, we should throw an error (EESCAPE) if we run into this > > > > > scenario > > > > > to ease transition into a state where some escaped ordinaries are > > > > > blessed > > > > > with a special meaning -- it will either error out or have extended > > > > > behavior, rather than have two entirely different versions of > > > > > undefined > > > > > behavior that leave the consumer of regex(3) guessing as to what > > > > > behavior > > > > > will be used or leaving them with false impressions. > > > > > > > > > > This change bumps the symbol version of regcomp to FBSD_1.6 and > > > > > provides the > > > > > old escape semantics for legacy applications, just in case one has > > > > > an older > > > > > application that would immediately turn into a pumpkin because of an > > > > > extraneous escape that's embedded or otherwise critical to its > > > > > operation. > > > > > > > > > > This is the final piece needed before enhancing libregex with GNU > > > > > extensions > > > > > and flipping the switch on bsdgrep. > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition/ > > > > > > > > > > PR: 229925 (exp-run, courtesy of antoine) > > > > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10510 > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > head/contrib/netbsd-tests/lib/libc/regex/data/meta.in > > > > > head/contrib/netbsd-tests/lib/libc/regex/data/subexp.in > > > > > head/lib/libc/regex/Symbol.map > > > > > head/lib/libc/regex/regcomp.c > > > > > > > > I think there are 3 test cases need to be modified after this change: > > > > > > > > https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-amd64-test/16011/testReport/junit/lib.googletest.gtest_main/googletest-port-test/main/ > > > > https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-amd64-test/16011/testReport/junit/usr.bin.diff/diff_test/side_by_side/ > > > > https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-amd64-test/16011/testReport/junit/usr.bin.sed/sed2_test/hex_subst/ > > > > > > > > > > CC'ing asomers@ and ngie@, because ISTR they have some googletest stock. > > > > > > Testing my libregex GNU extensions revealed that I'm really not ready > > > to commit that just yet. We have two options here for googletest: > > > > > > 1. Disable it and create a PR to be fixed when my changes are done, > > > hopefully by the end of the week, or > > > 2. Fix the expressions in > > > contrib/googletest/googletest/test/googletest-port-test.cc to be POSIX > > > compliant and upstream that. > > > > > > #2 is generally a replacement of \w -> [[:alnum:]] and \W -> > > > [^[:alnum:]] and maybe \s -> [[:space:]]. > > > > > > > Sorry, to be more precise: disable it meaning expect failure of that > > specific test or something similar. > > I think there's no need to let a known issue generate lots of failure > reports for more than 24 hours, I suggest let's go with 1) first. For > 2), It's also good that both libregex and googletest can aware the > difference between POSIX and GNU extensions, but I am not sure how > upstream thinks about this. Still worth trying, though. >
Sure- if you have time and no one objects, please proceed with #1 (no time at the moment myself) and I'll get it fixed this weekend, even if I have to hold back implementation of some of the GNU extensions to nab the few googletest's tests care about. Thanks, Kyle Evans _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
