[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#15192: UTF-16 surrogate pair handling in grep -i option

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: bug#15192: UTF-16 surrogate pair handling in grep -i option
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:58:53 -0700

I guess it is a different point of view.  Maybe I'm just too
forward-thinking? :-)
I.e., if the remaining cygwin-specific bug is fixed soon, there will
be little reason for separate tests.
Are you planning to work on the cygwin/regexp bug?

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Aug 25 12:49, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Corinna Vinschen <...> wrote:
>> > But, here's a question:  If the surrogate-pair test fails without the
>> > patch due to the SEGV, and it also fails with the patch, just in a
>> > different way, what's the idea of the testcase?  In theory, shouldn't
>> > there be two tests, one of them testing only for this very SEGV, and
>> > another test testing how grep handles 4 byte UTF-8 values, since that's
>> > another problem entirely?
>> It's a trade-off.  Split surrogate-pair testing into two very similar
>> test scripts?
>> Factor the similar parts into cfg.sh and use them from two test scripts?
>> It didn't fee like it was justified in this case, since it's a
>> cygwin-specific bug.
>> If there's a short/reliable shell-level test for "is-cygwin", I suppose we
>   case $(uname -s) in
>   CYGWIN*)
>     ...;;
>   *)
>     ...;
>   esac
>> could make the loop that iterates over grep options skip the currently-
>> known-to-fail cases on Cygwin systems.
> No, that's not right, IMHO.  It's a matter how you define the test.
> Only one part of the test is actually testing for the SEGV bug, is all
> I'm saying.  If you want to have a PASS in the testsuite if this works,
> it should be a standalone test.
> The second part of the test tests if grep handles 4 byte UTF-8 sequences
> in regex'es correctly.  It's a different test.  If you define this one
> as a target-agnostic test, it requires another test script.
> If you define the whole script as *the* test for UTF-16 surrogates,
> I suppose it should stay as is and the testcase should FAIL on Cygwin
> as long as not all parts of grep grok UTF-16 surrogates.
> It's probably just a different point of view, so, never mind.
> Thanks,
> Corinna
> --
> Corinna Vinschen
> Cygwin Maintainer
> Red Hat

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]