bug#15773: grep-2.15 bug report

[Stefano Lattarini]

Hi Jim.

On 11/01/2013 03:15 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Aharon Robbins <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hello All.
> >
> > > > > > After updating from 2.14 to 2.15 grep has started to fail to match patterns
> > > > > > that contain '\s*' or '\s\+'
> > >
> > > And here's a proper patch, including NEWS and test suite additions:
> >
> > FWIW, I can't reproduce this in gawk (gawk-4.1-stable branch).
> >
> > The program below correctly produces no output, with and without the fix
> > in dfa.c:lex. (I have added the fix anyway.)
> >
> > Any ideas why?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Arnold
> > ----------------------------------
> > BEGIN {
> >          pat["^\\s*$"] = pat["^\\s+$"] = pat["^\\s?$"] = pat["^\\s{1}$"] = 1
> >          for (i in pat) {
> >                  if (" " !~ i) {
> >                          printf("pattern \"%s\" failed!\n", i) > "/dev/stderr"
> >                          exit 1
> >                  }
> >          }
> >          exit 0
> > }
>
> Thanks for the report.
> With that, I realized that my new grep test case was inadequate:
> it did not force the use of a multibyte locale, and thus did not fail
> even without the fix.
>
This probably calls for a two patch series: the first introducing the test as
an XFAIL, the second fixing the bug without touching the tests, and verifying
that the test succeeds.

> I'm amending the patch (not yet pushed) with this:
> diff --git a/tests/backslash-s-and-repetition-operators 
b/tests/backslash-s-and-repetition-operators
> index 562646d..b1267f8 100755
> --- a/tests/backslash-s-and-repetition-operators
> +++ b/tests/backslash-s-and-repetition-operators
> @@ -9,6 +9,11 @@
>
>  . "${srcdir=.}/init.sh"; path_prepend_ ../src
>
> +require_en_utf8_locale_
> +
> +LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8
> +export LC_ALL
> +
> printf ' \n' > in || framework_failure_
>
> fail=0
>
Maybe you could even amend the test to run with all of the default locale, the
en_US.UTF-8 locale, and the C locale.  Possibly overly paranoid, but the
enhancement would be trivial, so why not get the extra coverage anyway?

Thanks,
  Stefano