Re: [pcre-dev] [Bug 1830] pcre2posix defines the same names …

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: zatlas1@yahoo.com
Date:  
To: admin@bugs.exim.org, pcre-dev@exim.org
Subject: Re: [pcre-dev] [Bug 1830] pcre2posix defines the same names as POSIX
Please consider my less than popular port to classic z/OS.I had a similar problem, and neither I, nor my users, have any control on which actual runtime module would yake precedence.  I resorted to name the pcre2 functions differently than the native posix function names.  It was refreshing to me that somebody automated the process, and validated my concerns.  If the patch makes it to PCRE2 (I do not support PCRE1 any more due to no interest at all), I will surely use it instead of a manual process.Please see this as an attempt to second the motion in favor of the patch.Ze'ev Atlas
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:50 AM, admin@???<admin@???> wrote: https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1830

--- Comment #22 from Philip Hazel <ph10@???> ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #21)

> My patch, that is built on top of the forthcoming 10.33, turns the
> non-prefixed _declarations_ into macros. It keeps the non-prefixed
> definitions.


My apologies again for not fully understanding what your patch does and to
which code it applies. Thank you for taking the time to explain it in detail.
But consider this: A user knows about this issue and writes a program that
calls pcre2_regcomp(). Unfortunately, the inclusion of pcre2posix.h will turn
this into pcre2_pcre2_regcomp() unless, as your patch has done, there is an
#undef. OK, perhaps nobody has done this yet, since pcre2_regcomp isn't yet
released - but there is the Debian patch previously mentioned, so people have
already been playing around with this.

> If you feel uncomfortable with applying my patches, fine. I just want to
> point that your 10.33 code as it is now does not provide a complete fix. But
> you probably know that because 10.33 also documents that an application must
> be changed to utilize the new prefixed functions.


I *am* uncomfortable, because it seems to me to be the kind of change that will
trip up somebody. Perhaps I'm too paranoid! (However, I regret that we didn't
think about this when PCRE2 was being developed.)

--
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