develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2008

RE: [perl #35877] Strange regex failure?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Steve Hay
Date:
August 12, 2008 05:41
Subject:
RE: [perl #35877] Strange regex failure?
Message ID:
1B32FF956ABF414C9BCE5E487A1497E7022AE316@ukmail02.planit.group
Bram wrote:
> Citeren Steve Hay <SteveHay@planit.com>:
> 
>> Bram via RT wrote:
>>> On Fri Nov 16 06:46:06 2007, stmpeters wrote:
>>>> On Thu May 19 03:49:55 2005, shay wrote:
>>>>> This is a bug report for perl from steve.hay@uk.radan.com,
>>>>> generated with the help of perlbug 1.35 running under perl v5.8.6.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe that the following program should print "OK" 5 times
>>>>> over,    but it prints "NOT OK" from the first line.
>>>>> 
>>>>> print qq[>10\n] =~ />\d+$ \n/ix  ? "OK\n" : "NOT OK\n";
>>>>> print qq[>1\n]  =~ />\d+$ \n/ix  ? "OK\n" : "NOT OK\n";
>>>>> print qq[>10\n] =~ /\d+$ \n/ix   ? "OK\n" : "NOT OK\n";
>>>>> print qq[>10\n] =~ />\d\d$ \n/ix ? "OK\n" : "NOT OK\n";
>>>>> print qq[>10\n] =~ />\d+$ \n/x   ? "OK\n" : "NOT OK\n";
>>>>> 
>>>>> I get the same behaviour with 5.6.0 through to 5.8.6 and
>>>>> bleadperl, all on Windows XP. 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I just ran this with a recent blead and got...
>>>> 
>>>> [steve@sulu ~]$ /tmp/bleadperl/bin/perl5.10.0 rt_35877.t
>>>> OK
>>>> OK
>>>> OK
>>>> OK
>>>> OK
>>>> 
>>>> Can you a few other people double check just to make sure this
>>>> isn't a heisenbug? 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Steve Peters
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if tests for this were added so a patch with the tests
>>> of the report is attached.
>> 
>> Are my eyes just glazing over, or have you got this slightly
>> different to the original bug report? 
>> 
>> Your patch has
>> 
>> />\d+$ \n/ix   >10\n
>> /\d+$ \n/ix    >1\n
>> /\d+$ \n/ix    >10\n
>> />\d\d$ \n/ix  >10\n
>> />\d+$ \n/x    >10\n
>> 
>> but the original bug report had
>> 
>> />\d+$ \n/ix   >10\n
>> />\d+$ \n/ix   >1\n
>> /\d+$ \n/ix    >10\n
>> />\d\d$ \n/ix  >10\n
>> />\d+$ \n/x    >10\n
>> 
>> You seem to have missed a '>' from the second test.
>> 
>> It actually fails either way with maint, and works either way with
>> blead, so it probably doesn't matter. I just wondered if there was
>> some significance to your change?
> 
> The change was unintended...
> 
> New patch attached.

Thanks, applied as #34202.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About