* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:19:34AM CEST: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 6/17/2008 3:08 PM: > | > | +at_pass_list=`for f in */pass; do echo $f; done | sed '/*/d; s,/pass,,'` > | +at_skip_list=`for f in */skip; do echo $f; done | sed '/*/d; s,/skip,,'` > | +at_xfail_list=`for f in */xfail; do echo $f; done | sed '/*/d; s,/xfail,,'` > | +at_xpass_list=`for f in ?/xpass ??/xpass ???/xpass ????/xpass; do > | + echo $f; done | sed '/?/d; s,/xpass,,'` > > Why the inconsistency between */pass and ?/xpass?
Because we output the xpass list, and it should be ordered, to have 11 2 3 failed, 10 4 5 passed unexpectedly rather than 2 3 11 failed, 4 5 10 passed unexpectedly in the summary. I didn't bother fixing those variables which we do not output; the question mark patterns are more, thus incur higher overhead. > Also, are '/*/' and > '/?/' portable patterns in sed, since those are regex metacharacters, or > do we need to play it safe and use '/\*/' and '/\?/'? The '*' is special and needs escaping, fixed now, and pushed. I have no idea how I could have overlooked that, but it seems that GNU and BSD sed do not interpret it as special when it's the first regex token. '?' is not special. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Ralf
