On Aug 25 12:49, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Corinna Vinschen <...> wrote: > > But, here's a question: If the surrogate-pair test fails without the > > patch due to the SEGV, and it also fails with the patch, just in a > > different way, what's the idea of the testcase? In theory, shouldn't > > there be two tests, one of them testing only for this very SEGV, and > > another test testing how grep handles 4 byte UTF-8 values, since that's > > another problem entirely? > > It's a trade-off. Split surrogate-pair testing into two very similar > test scripts? > Factor the similar parts into cfg.sh and use them from two test scripts? > It didn't fee like it was justified in this case, since it's a > cygwin-specific bug. > > If there's a short/reliable shell-level test for "is-cygwin", I suppose we
case $(uname -s) in
CYGWIN*)
...;;
*)
...;
esac
> could make the loop that iterates over grep options skip the currently-
> known-to-fail cases on Cygwin systems.
No, that's not right, IMHO. It's a matter how you define the test.
Only one part of the test is actually testing for the SEGV bug, is all
I'm saying. If you want to have a PASS in the testsuite if this works,
it should be a standalone test.
The second part of the test tests if grep handles 4 byte UTF-8 sequences
in regex'es correctly. It's a different test. If you define this one
as a target-agnostic test, it requires another test script.
If you define the whole script as *the* test for UTF-16 surrogates,
I suppose it should stay as is and the testcase should FAIL on Cygwin
as long as not all parts of grep grok UTF-16 surrogates.
It's probably just a different point of view, so, never mind.
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat
pgpakR7WRIANs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
