------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1463
--- Comment #8 from Philip Hazel <ph10@???> 2014-07-20 17:16:17 ---
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Simon McVittie wrote:
> The difference is three test failures of this form:
>
> /(){64294967295}/I
> -Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 14
> +Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 9
>
> For your convenience, here are the relevant offsets:
>
> /(){64294967295}/I
> ^ ^
> 9 14
>
> The old implementation reported the error as if it had occurred at the last
> digit of the quantifier; your new implementation after patch 1472 reports the
> error as if it had occurred at the first digit at which the quantifier exceeds
> the allowed range.
Sure, that was deliberate.
> Alternatively, you could update the expected offsets in testdata/testoutput2 to
> match the new implementation. This is the one I'd go for if I was the
> maintainer, but obviously it's your choice.
And indeed, that is what was done - otherwise the tests in the current
sources would not pass. But they do. I would of course have run (and
updated) them when fixing the bug. A grep for 'number too big' in
testdata2 shows this:
Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 7
Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 8
Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 9
Failed: number too big in {} quantifier at offset 11
So... the problem is perhaps that a patch was applied to the code and
not to the test data?
Philip
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
