From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 79C803948010; Thu,  8 Apr 2021 12:48:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 79C803948010
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/27681] FAIL: gdb.base/help.exp: apropos \(print[^[
 bsiedf\".-]\) (timeout)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:48:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-27681-4717-bYlXaJGRqH@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-27681-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-27681-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:48:48 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27681

--- Comment #22 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #19)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #18)
> > The types are simply incompatible:
> > [...]
>=20
> This has existed for a very long time in gdb.
> compiled_regex (commit 2d7cc5c797) didn't even introduce it,
> it existed in apropos_command + apropos_cmd before that.
>=20
> I suspect the answer is that gdb was originally written
> to assume the libiberty regex implementation.

I wonder if libiberty has the same problem.

I'm currently building with --with-included-regex and gdb seems to work fin=
e,
and it eliminates any dependencies on external regex providers.

But libiberty has the same difference in declared types:
...
int
regcomp (regex_t *preg, const char *pattern, int cflags)
...
and:
...
int
re_search (struct re_pattern_buffer *bufp, const char *string, int size,
           int startpos, int range, struct re_registers *regs)
...

So, are these two compatible in libiberty or not?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=