bug#13525: 8.20 - [seq 1 3 1] treated as [seq 1 3]

[Pádraig Brady]

On 01/22/2013 12:17 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 11:23 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > On 01/22/2013 10:43 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > There is another bug that sneaked into the speed patch of seq on 13.09.12:
> > >
> > > 560   if (all_digits_p (argv[optind])
> > > 561       && (n_args == 1 || all_digits_p (argv[optind + 1]))
> > > 562       && (n_args < 3 || STREQ ("1", argv[optind + 2]))
> > > 563       && !equal_width && !format_str && strlen (separator) == 1)
> > >
> > > That should probably be:
> > > 560   if (all_digits_p (argv[optind])
> > > 561       && (n_args == 1 || all_digits_p (argv[optind + 1]))
> > > 562       && (n_args < 3 || STREQ ("1", argv[optind + 1]))
> > > 563       && !equal_width && !format_str && strlen (separator) == 1)
> >
> > Sigh we really messed up seq in that release :(
> > The attached should fix it:

The seq 0 1 0 "regression" was only because I didn't
adjust for the parameters passed into seq_fast.

So hopefully this update caters for all cases.

thanks,
Pádraig.

seq-ignored-step.diff
Description: Text Data