X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:01:38 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [gcc] FYI, libffi FAILs with cygwin snapshot 20100205, 20100207 & 20100210...
Message-ID:	<20100211090138.GH28659@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<5460e3331002102240t20248f5en581227dd1d8ae3f0 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<5460e3331002102240t20248f5en581227dd1d8ae3f0@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Feb 11 07:40, Christian Joensson wrote:
> > A "diff ../../../objdir-156618/libffi.log testsuite/libffi.log" (where
> > the first file is the log file when using the cygwin1.dll snapshot
> > 20100207 and the second file is using the 1.7.1-1 one) gives me this
> > (as an example):
> >
> > 1c1
> > < Test Run By chj on Tue Feb  9 13:17:04 2010
> > ---
> >> Test Run By chj on Wed Feb 10 11:39:41 2010
> > 115,118c115,118
> > < 7 8. 9 1 9. 3: 8 17. 12
> > < res: 8 17. 12
> > < 7 8. 9 1 9. 3: 8 17. 12
> > < res: 8 17. 12
> > ---
> >> 7 8 9 1 9 3: 8 17 12
> >> res: 8 17 12
> >> 7 8 9 1 9 3: 8 17 12
> >> res: 8 17 12
> >
> >
> > Note the crept in "." (dot) which is symptomatic for the situation...
> > if this rings a bell in anyone's ear?
> 
> well, maybe this never shows up on cygwin developers' list.. but
> 
> 20100204 works... 20100205 doesn't...

That's the same observation Marco made in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-02/msg00257.html
and it points to a problem in the new, multibyte-aware regex imported
from FreeBSD.

The change between 20100204 and 20100205 was a trivial change to
silence a cheeky gcc, and it only sets locale variables, which were
undefined before,,, to a start value of 0.  Nothing else happened,
but still, now we have a misbehaving regex.  How disappointing.

The simple fix would be to revert to our old regex implementation,
but that would mean to give up multibyte-awareness again.

A bit more complex but more satisfying in the long run is to find
out what exactly is going wrong.

What I need is a simple testcase, either a very small piece of plain C
code which shows the problem with regcomp/regexec, Or, if you're not
fluent enough in C, it would help to have the input string and the
search string which misbehave, like this"

  Input string:  "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."
  Search string: "f.x"

In the meantime I'll have a look to see if I find anything obvious.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -