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
