Chet Ramey wrote: > Kevin F. Quinn wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:55:02 -0500 >> Chet Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> I don't get this; I must be missing something. If I do, in >>>> bash-3.1: >>> I get identical results with fully-patched versions of bash-3.1 and >>> bash-3.2: >> $ /data/g2/tmp/portage/app-shells/bash-3.2_p9-r2/image/bin/bash -version >> GNU bash, version 3.2.9(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu) >> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> >> $ /data/g2/tmp/portage/app-shells/bash-3.2_p9-r2/image/bin/bash ~/x17 >> yes 1 >> yes 2 >> yes 3 >> yes 4 >> >> That's with bash-3.2 built with only the 001 through 009 patches >> applied (we have a few other local patches for various reasons, but I've >> built without them to be sure they're not affecting this). What's the >> (7) in the release number - does that refer to difference I might be >> missing? > > Strange. It succeeds on Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, and BSD/OS. Linux > fails (Red Hat, FWIW).
The glibc implementation of regcomp/regexec apparently does not allow backslashes to escape `ordinary' pattern characters. Posix leaves that behavior undefined; glibc seems to have made a different choice than most other implementations. It will be complicated to work around. It's little inconsistencies like this that induce developers to ship their own versions of library functions. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Live Strong. No day but today. Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ _______________________________________________ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash