Nick Kew wrote on 2009-07-19 00:04:59: > Just been reviewing it with the testcase Bob found. I'm not able to > reproduce the problem on this platform because Sun CC sets the > non-matches to 0, so it all works. But the problem is clear. > > This throws up a non-serious problem with the patch: testing for <0. > Wouldn't a better test be rm_eo == rm_so, meaning null match?
I think you are right. The tests for <0 are part of the original code so I was just keeping them but testing for re->have_match first. > Patching trunk based on the above. Will propose for backport > if noone disputes my amendment to the patch. I've seen you added both tests in your patch so we are good anyway. +1 (and thanks for getting this fixed in trunk, I didn't had the time to look at this over the weekend). cheers... -- Lars Eilebrecht [email protected]
