[pcre-dev] [Bug 1189] JIT bug with lookbehind assertion.

2016-02-23 Thread admin 
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189

--- Comment #12 from Zoltan Herczeg  ---
Thank you. It seems the bug is present in 8.38 and caused by a bad fast forward
search (the original bug caused by a different issue). However, this part has
been redesigned recently, and the new code does not have this bug. Could you
try the latest svn:

svn co svn://vcs.exim.org/pcre/code/trunk pcre-8.39

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-- 
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev

[pcre-dev] [Bug 1798] New: Regression in value reported by PCRE2_INFO_ALLOPTIONS wrt PCRE2_DUPNAMES

2016-02-23 Thread admin 
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798

Bug ID: 1798
   Summary: Regression in value reported by PCRE2_INFO_ALLOPTIONS
wrt PCRE2_DUPNAMES
   Product: PCRE
   Version: 10.21 (PCRE2)
  Hardware: x86-64
OS: Windows
Status: NEW
  Severity: bug
  Priority: medium
 Component: Code
  Assignee: p...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
  Reporter: lucas.trzesniew...@gmail.com
CC: pcre-dev@exim.org

Hello,

I spotted a regression between PCRE2 v10.20 and v10.21:
The value returned by pcre2_pattern_info for PCRE2_INFO_ALLOPTIONS doesn't
report the PCRE2_DUPNAMES flag anymore when the pattern contains (?J).

Here's some sample code to reproduce the issue:

#include 

#define PCRE2_CODE_UNIT_WIDTH 8
#include 

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int errorcode;
PCRE2_SIZE erroroffset;

PCRE2_UCHAR versionString[64];
if (pcre2_config(PCRE2_CONFIG_VERSION, ) > 0)
printf("PCRE2 version: %s\n", versionString);

pcre2_code *re = pcre2_compile((PCRE2_SPTR)"(?J)(?)(?)",
PCRE2_ZERO_TERMINATED, 0, , , 0);
if (!re)
return 1;

uint32_t argOptions;
if (!pcre2_pattern_info(re, PCRE2_INFO_ALLOPTIONS, ))
printf("PCRE2_DUPNAMES: %s\n", argOptions & PCRE2_DUPNAMES ? "Yes"
: "No");

pcre2_code_free(re);
return 0;
}

And here are the results for both versions:

PCRE2 version: 10.20 2015-06-30
PCRE2_DUPNAMES: Yes

PCRE2 version: 10.21 2016-01-12
PCRE2_DUPNAMES: No

I didn't check whether other flags are affected.

(Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for all your work on this
great library!)

Regards,
Lucas Trzesniewski

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-- 
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev

[pcre-dev] [Bug 1189] JIT bug with lookbehind assertion.

2016-02-23 Thread admin 
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189

Christian Schneider  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@cschneid.com

--- Comment #11 from Christian Schneider  ---
Created attachment 866
  --> https://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=866=edit
C source for a quick reproduction of bug

PCRE library version is 8.37 (libpcre1-8.37-3.5.1.x86_64) on openSUSE 13.2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-- 
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev