[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:58:14 -0700 |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 02:06 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>
>> I have worked on a patch but don't have a reliable fix yet, or even a
>> portable test case to illustrate the bug.
>
> On further thought I found a test case and a fix, which I've attached.
> Normally I would just install this, but we're so close to a release that
> I'll wait for a word from Jim.
Thank you for working on that.
One nit: perhaps it should continue to work when a search string
contains a NUL byte? E.g., this works before your change on OS X
yet finds no match with the patch applied:
$ zgrep -af <(printf 'b\0\na') <(printf 'b\0') <(echo a)
/dev/fd/12:b
/dev/fd/13:a
Might be tricky to portably transform that NUL byte into something we
can embed in a command-line-specified search string. Is there even a
notation for that? I don't think so.
But NUL problems aside, this also should work, requiring alternation
in the regexp derived from input with two or more lines, but then
we'll have to escape embedded '|' bytes, too:
$ zgrep -f <(printf 'a\nb') <(echo b) <(echo a)
/dev/fd/12:b
/dev/fd/13:a
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Fulvio Scapin, 2016/03/08
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Jim Meyering, 2016/03/15
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/16
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2016/03/17
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/17
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions,
Jim Meyering <=
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/18
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Jim Meyering, 2016/03/18
- bug#22945: Surprising behaviour (bug?) of zgrep in combination with the -f option and process substitutions, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/18