------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1463 --- Comment #8 from Philip Hazel <[email protected]> 2014-07-20 17:16:17 --- On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Simon McVittie wrote: > The difference is three test failures of this form: > > /(){64294967295}/I > -Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 14 > +Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 9 > > For your convenience, here are the relevant offsets: > > /(){64294967295}/I > ^ ^ > 9 14 > > The old implementation reported the error as if it had occurred at the last > digit of the quantifier; your new implementation after patch 1472 reports the > error as if it had occurred at the first digit at which the quantifier exceeds > the allowed range. Sure, that was deliberate. > Alternatively, you could update the expected offsets in testdata/testoutput2 > to > match the new implementation. This is the one I'd go for if I was the > maintainer, but obviously it's your choice. And indeed, that is what was done - otherwise the tests in the current sources would not pass. But they do. I would of course have run (and updated) them when fixing the bug. A grep for 'number too big' in testdata2 shows this: Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 7 Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 8 Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 9 Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 11 So... the problem is perhaps that a patch was applied to the code and not to the test data? Philip -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
