Hello,
looks like it worked,
but what about this diff,just adding the new when rm_so is 0 (how to run the
regression test ?):
Index: process.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/sed/process.c,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -r1.15 process.c
89a90
>
250d250
<
353,362d352
< } else {
< if (match[0].rm_so == 0)
< cspace(&SS, s, match[0].rm_so + 1,
< APPEND);
< else
< cspace(&SS, s + match[0].rm_so, 1,
< APPEND);
< s += match[0].rm_so + 1;
< slen -= match[0].rm_so + 1;
< lastempty = 1;
363a354,362
> if (match[0].rm_so == 0)
> cspace(&SS, s, match[0].rm_so + 1,
> APPEND);
> else
> cspace(&SS, s + match[0].rm_so, 1,
> APPEND);
> s += match[0].rm_so + 1;
> slen -= match[0].rm_so + 1;
> lastempty = 1;
2011/6/16 Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:41:51PM -0300, pablo caballero wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 09:50:29AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 06/15/11 08:35, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 07:44:20AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:56:27PM +0200, sven falempin wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Hello,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Indeed there is a small problem:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> # echo 'abbbbbbbbbbbbbfffff' | sed -E 's/[a$]/x/g'
> > >> >>> xbbbbbbbbbbbbbfffff
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That is expected. $ is only special when it ocurs as the list char
> of
> > >> >> a re.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> # echo 'abbbbbbbbbbbbbfffff' | sed -E 's/a|$/x/g'
> > >> >>> x
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is likely to be a real bug.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> String modification is done inside the 'case 0:'
> > >> >>> substitute(struct s_command *cp) in src/usr.bin/process.c
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> But the problem may comme from regexec_e.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Maybe openbsd devs should test another regexp code version ?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Why? If we should change libs on every bug encountered, nothing
> will
> > >> >> be left.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anyway, thanks for the report.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Otto
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Hope it helps,
> > >> >>> Who still use sed anyway :)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regards.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2011/6/12 Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Hi Nils,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Nils Anspach wrote on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:49:42PM +0200:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> I have an issue with sed. Why does
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> echo 'ab' | sed -E 's/a|$/x/g'
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> give 'x' whereas
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I sense a bug here.
> > >> >>>> Tracing a bit around process(),
> > >> >>>> it looks like the first application of the s command
> > >> >>>> yields dst = "x" continue_to_process = "b\n",
> > >> >>>> and then the second application
> > >> >>>> appends "\n" to dst (should rather append "b", i think).
> > >> >>>> Maybe something is wrong here with character/pointer counting,
> > >> >>>> but i'm somewhat out of time now for tracing.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> This is worth more investigation.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Yours,
> > >> >>>> Ingo
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> > >> >>> /\
> > >> >
> > >> > This dif fixes your problem here. Big question is of course: does it
> > >> > break other cases?
> > >>
> > >> It differs from perl like this:
> > >>
> > >> $ echo 'l1_1' | perl -pe 's/1|$/X/g'
> > >> lX_XX
> > >> $ echo 'l1_1' | sed -E 's/1|$/X/g'
> > >> lX_X
> > >>
> > >> Meaning we don't hit that final '$' if the last match went to eol.
> > >>
> > >> /Alexander
> > >
> > > Right.
> > >
> > > I took a look at freebsd, thay have some patches in this area. But
> > > applying the changes did not have the desired effect. Have to look
> deeper.
> > >
> > > -Otto
> > >
> > >
> >
> > HI Otto.
> >
> > I think that with a minor change (>= instead of > in the last line)
> > your diff works.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > + if (lastempty || match[0].rm_so != match[0].rm_eo
> ||
> > + (match[0].rm_so == match[0].rm_eo &&
> > + match[0].rm_so >= 0)) {
>
> From a first look I'm not sure about that. YOu might end up doing a
> second append later in the match[0].rm_so == 0 case.
>
> -Otto
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
