|
From: | GNU bug Tracking System |
Subject: | bug#38627: closed (uniq -c gets wrong count with non-ascii strings) |
Date: | Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:44:01 +0000 |
Your message dated Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:43:27 +0000 with message-id <address@hidden> and subject line Re: bug#38627: uniq -c gets wrong count with non-ascii strings has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #38627, regarding uniq -c gets wrong count with non-ascii strings to be marked as done. (If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact address@hidden.) -- 38627: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38627 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message ---Subject: uniq -c gets wrong count with non-ascii strings Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:40:14 -0500
With the following input: $ cat x"ⁿᵘˡˡ""ܥܝܪܐܩ"Running "uniq -c" says there's two copies of the same line!$ uniq -c x2 "ⁿᵘˡˡ"I've attached a copy of the test file, and here's the octal dump:$ od -b x0000000 042 342 201 277 341 265 230 313 241 313 241 042 012 042 334 2450000020 334 235 334 252 334 220 334 251 042 0120000032I'm getting this on:Linux tools-sgebastion-08 4.9.0-8-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.130-2 (2018-10-27) x86_64 GNU/Linuxuniq (GNU coreutils) 8.26My MacOS 10.13.6 box gets it right:$ uniq -c x1 "ⁿᵘˡˡ"1 "ܥܝܪܐܩ"x
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Subject: Re: bug#38627: uniq -c gets wrong count with non-ascii strings Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:43:27 +0000 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:73.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/73.0 On 17/12/2019 17:25, Roy Smith wrote:I stopped short of actually building uniq.c from source (bootstrap, prerequisites, ...), but looking at the code, it looks like the call chain is: different() xmemcoll() memcoll() strcoll() so I tried a little test at the strcoll() level: #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <string.h> int main (int argc, char **argv) { unsigned char null[] = { 0342, 0201, 0277, 0341, 0265, 0230, 0313, 0241, 0313, 0241, 0 }; unsigned char iraq[] = { 0334, 0245, 0334, 0235, 0334, 0252, 0334, 0220, 0334, 0251, 0}; printf("%s\n", null); printf("%s\n", iraq); int m = strcoll(null, iraq); printf("m = %d\n", m); } That correctly says the strings are different: $ LANG=en_US.UTF-8 ./a.out ⁿᵘˡˡ ܥܝܪܐܩ m = 6On Dec 16, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Roy Smith <address@hidden> wrote: Yup, this does depend on the locale. In my original example, I had LANG=en_US.UTF-8. Setting it to C.UTF-8 gets me the right result:$ LANG=C.UTF-8 uniq -c x 1 "ⁿᵘˡˡ" 1 "ܥܝܪܐܩ"But, that doesn't fully explain what's going on. I find it difficult to believe that there's any collation sequence in the world where those two strings should compare the same. I've been playing around with the ICU string compare demo <http://demo.icu-project.org/icu-bin/locexp?_=en_US&d_=en&x=col> and can't reproduce this there. Possibly I just haven't hit upon the right combination of options to set, but I think it's far-fetched that there's any such combination for which those two strings comparing equal is legitimate.I think you ran your test on a newer glibc. Testing on older glibc-2.22 I see the issue with strcoll() returning 0 for the above strings, while it returns an expected difference on glibc-2.30 at least. There are a few things to reason about with removing strcoll(), namely: buggy strcoll implementations inconsistent unicode normalization mismatched locale settings and data handling of characters ignored in collation order tl;dr is that strcoll() should be removed for all these reasons, and I've added a test for each of the 4 cases above in the attached patch, which I'll push later. Marking this as done. thanks, Pádraiguniq-no-strcoll.patch
Description: Text Data
--- End Message ---
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |