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 45F64394742E; Thu,  8 Apr 2021 12:56:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 45F64394742E
From: "matz at suse dot de" <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 12:56:56 +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: matz at suse dot de
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-dOuruWvApr@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 12:56:57 -0000

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

--- Comment #23 from Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #22)
> I wonder if libiberty has the same problem.
>=20
> I'm currently building with --with-included-regex and gdb seems to work
> fine, and it eliminates any dependencies on external regex providers.
>=20
> 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)
> ...
>=20
> So, are these two compatible in libiberty or not?

_Within_ libiberty (which is essentially the same a gnulib/regex*.c and
glibc/regex*.c) these are compatible types, and using regcomp with re_search
works.  As soon as you replace the POSIX ones (and only those) with differe=
nt
implementations the same problems occur.  Which is why mixing re_search and
regcomp is basically a problem in waiting when you can't ensure that both c=
ome
from the same implementation.  (Linking statically against libiberty or gnu=
lib
would ensure this, as would directly linking in regex.o, but linking
dynamically
against libc and pcre2-posix would not).

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