[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#6643: [PATCH] sort: fix a bug with sort -u and xmemcoll0, and tune k
bug#6643: [PATCH] sort: fix a bug with sort -u and xmemcoll0, and tune keycompare
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:46:29 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
On 16/07/10 00:33, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Well, after my brave words about xmemcoll0 unlikely to be misused in 'sort'
> I found a misuse of it. With sort -u, write_bytes replaces the trailing NUL
> with a newline but it doesn't change it back after writing. In some cases
> "sort -u" will output a line and then later use it as an argument for
> comparison, which will mess up if the trailing NUL has been replaced.
> I pushed the following patch to work around the problem.
That looks correct.
Sorry for not spotting it.
I had intended to look at the -u paths but didn't
when I considered that all the -u tests had passed.
But I now realize that they're run under LC_ALL=C
I'll add a few basic tests I think to run under $mb_locale
> Chen, can you please verify that "sort -u" does not access the same
> line from multiple threads, even saved lines? If it does, then even this
> is not enough: we would need to alter write_bytes so that it does not
> modify its argument at all.
> This patch also tunes keycompare slightly. I should have
> broken it up into a different patch, but it sort of snuck in.
I didn't do that because then you're just doing what xmemcoll()
is doing anyway. I.E. the other xmemcoll0() is more cache
efficient because it doesn't need to write anything in the
normal case for each comparison.
> By the way, any objection if I put 'const' after the types that it
> qualifies, e.g., "char const *" rather than "const char *"? That
> was the usual style here.
Yep that's fine.