public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tromey at sourceware dot 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 13:10:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-27681-4717-uvkVeZSiuR@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-27681-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27681
--- Comment #24 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
> from the same implementation. (Linking statically against libiberty or
> gnulib
> would ensure this, as would directly linking in regex.o, but linking
> dynamically
> against libc and pcre2-posix would not).
libiberty renames the symbols to avoid clashing, which is why that
USE_INCLUDED_REGEX / xregex.h include stuff matters. It prepends
an "x":
murgatroyd. pwd
/home/tromey/gdb/build/libiberty
murgatroyd. nm regex.o|grep regfree
00000000000063d0 T xregfree
I think there are a few routes forward:
1. Change the code to conform to POSIX. Fine by me.
2. Change the code to always use libiberty. This requires understanding
why the alternative was ever made possible.
Option 2 has this mild benefit around avoiding allocations, if we want
to pursue it.
I tend to doubt that regex performance is at all important to gdb,
so I wouldn't worry about whether pcre is better or stuff like that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-08 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 9:46 [Bug gdb/27681] New: " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 9:50 ` [Bug gdb/27681] " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 10:06 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 10:08 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 11:38 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 12:53 ` tromey at sourceware dot org
2021-04-01 13:16 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 14:53 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-02 11:17 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-02 11:32 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-03 13:08 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-04 2:21 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 8:53 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2021-04-06 9:00 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 9:23 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2021-04-06 13:17 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 14:03 ` matz at suse dot de
2021-04-06 14:12 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 14:29 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 15:51 ` matz at suse dot de
2021-04-07 2:51 ` tromey at sourceware dot org
2021-04-08 8:57 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08 9:44 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08 12:48 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08 12:56 ` matz at suse dot de
2021-04-08 13:10 ` tromey at sourceware dot org [this message]
2021-04-12 13:38 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-13 15:35 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-21 19:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-21 19:55 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-27681-4717-uvkVeZSiuR@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb-prs@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).