From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17407 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2006 18:54:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 17391 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2006 18:54:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060208185458.17390.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libgcj/26177] [4.1 only] Exception when compiling valid regex pattern In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 18:54 ------- The regex changes are unlikely to cause big destabilization for 3 reasons: * They are pure java * The regex code has historically been somewhat broken, so we're unlikely to make the situation worse * They've been tested in classpath using mauve I'll look at this a bit. I'm leaning toward including the changes in 4.1 because we've seen more than one application now with regexes that hit libgcj bugs. Andrew, I agree with your point in general. We should probably discuss it in some forum other than a random regex bug report though :-) -- tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-02-08 18:54:56 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26177