From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8EB5238582B4; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 22:56:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8EB5238582B4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1662504999; bh=ltEa1XHwuLat9yry1fmYum7hLupbWC/l8rUol8FJHWw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FGlAaueUfG4nXyvd4qwXXf2BTNfo7Yqu8+6MmfLIVDBCYHTsN9Y2N2nd7lQ/pChF0 cGIi1eUaRghEKGGUbZfXIJabqG8PivIEbYaAwmc6y0D5F0O20BcY/UDu18uC9wvbtg AfDDRyDGhCrKEnQgfxUhuwTrkVAQfoDwTuEerx6M= From: "vincent-srcware at vinc17 dot net" To: glibc-bugs-regex@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug regex/11053] Wrong results with backreferences Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 22:56:39 +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: vincent-srcware at vinc17 dot net 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 #19 from Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre --- Sorry, actually both regbug.c and rebug2.c fail as they return the exit sta= tus 1 (with my usual configuration, my prompt shows any non-zero exit status, b= ut this is not the case of the machine on which I had done the test, so that I missed the failure initially): vinc17@gcc92:~$ ./regbug vinc17@gcc92:~$ echo $? 1 vinc17@gcc92:~$ ./rebug2 vinc17@gcc92:~$ echo $? 1 However, in the test from Paolo Bonzini's bug report (comment 0), grep no longer crashes (while it still crashes with glibc 2.34, which does not have= the fix). 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)". So it seems that the fix mentioned in comment 13 fixed the crashes (which w= as the initial bug report), but not the misbehavior. Now, with these new details, is it still OK to regard this bug as fixed and that the misbehavior (rebug.c from Bug#17356; regbug.c and rebug2.c from th= is bug) is actually a new bug? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=