On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote: > On 07/01/2013 04:12 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote: > >>(?&foo){0} > >> > >>is getting replaced by a NOTHING node, which is an optimization we > >>agreed to on p5p. Thus it doesn't set up 'foo', and so the > >>reference to it is NULL, which segfaults when dereferenced. > >> > >>Suggestions as to how to proceed are welcome. Obviously, we could > >>remove the optimization. Or apply it when what is being replaced is > >>one of certain node types, or has some characteristic, like width. > >>I haven't looked into this at all. > > > >Not knowing the details of the optimisation, I would hazard the suggestion > >what we just remove the optimisation for now (hopefully a simple fix that > >can be done now and backported in time for 5.18.1), then worry about doing > >a better fix later on. > > > > Now reverted by > > commit 2e3a23da260a7ec5d61b81cb34c38de5e528b41d And now cherry-picked into maint-5.18 by 0ec7dc753859025ffc69eb02bf79a3f27f794ab1 -- In my day, we used to edit the inodes by hand. With magnets.Thread Previous | Thread Next