From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9B7B53853553; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:41:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9B7B53853553 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1662507690; bh=Pl8B9TUjuvlR6uQX8BZgSHoUsOm70dEodcY5kp7Udxw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=R2jt42YA9DzhkraNK0kArmVRbWxH5oBL/0wSFhxUC93WduarcKmSAUxxDIr2MG3jW Y3FATBP7wdKbS0DSdZwOD70WDLXHIObTxUbi4x+vkiksZf6Yn9BBdCZob996yEQHM6 qeIsloTwoeaFItQloSyfZr3zgMdDnuGLdey+A7C4= From: "eggert at cs dot ucla.edu" To: glibc-bugs-regex@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug regex/11053] Wrong results with backreferences Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 23:41:30 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: regex X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.11 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: eggert at cs dot ucla.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: eggert at cs dot ucla.edu X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: security+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D11053 --- Comment #20 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu --- (In reply to Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre from comment #19) > regbug.c is derived from the attachment in Bug#17356 (as said in comment = 5). > I've tested this original testcase: with glibc 2.34 on x86_64, it crashes > (segmentation fault); with glibc 2.35 on riscv64 (host gcc92), it outputs > "no match (incorrect)". >=20 > So it seems that the fix mentioned in comment 13 fixed the crashes (which > was the initial bug report), but not the misbehavior. OK, so in that case how about if we update Bug#17356 by (1) saying it is no longer a duplicate of Bug#11053 (as we've fixed the latter but not the form= er), and (2) reopening Bug#17536? If I understand you correctly, that would match the symptoms you describe. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=