Hi наб!

On 4/21/23 03:15, наб wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 03:07:00AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> On 4/21/23 02:45, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>> Is the following call valid, or is it UB?
>>>     regmatch_t  pmatch = {
>>>         .rm_so = string,
>>>         .rm_eo = string + 42,  // Assume this offset is valid
>>>     };
>>>     regexec(preg, string, 0, pmatch, REG_NOSUB | REG_STARTEND);
>>> How about this?
>>>     regexec(preg, string, 999, pmatch, REG_NOSUB | REG_STARTEND);
> (If you make that "&pmatch",
>  and put the REG_NOSUB into a preceding regcomp(), my bet is on "valid".)

D'oh!  I should check what I write before putting it in a bottle.
Yeah, I meant that, or at least should have meant that :)

> 
>>> Current implementations will work, because nmatch is effectively
>>> ignored.  But is it intended to be this way, or just an implementation
>>> detail?
> My bet is on "intended", quoth 4.4BSD-Lite regex(3):
>   REG_STARTEND  The   string   is   considered   to   start  at  string +
>                 pmatch[0].rm_so and to have a terminating NUL located  at
>                 string +  pmatch[0].rm_eo  (there  need not actually be a
>                 NUL at that location), regardless of the value of nmatch.
>                 See  below for the definition of pmatch and nmatch.  This
>                 is an extension, compatible with  but  not  specified  by
>                 POSIX 1003.2, and should be used with caution in software
>                 intended to be portable to other systems.   Note  that  a
>                 non-zero  rm_so  does  not imply REG_NOTBOL; REG_STARTEND
>                 affects only the location of the string, not  how  it  is
>                 matched.

While this paragraph is not crystal clear to me, the one you quoted below
pretty much is.

> 
>> Here's a related question:
>>     regmatch_t  pmatch = {
>>         .rm_so = string,
>>         .rm_eo = string + 42,  // Assume this offset is valid
>>     };
>>     regexec(preg, string, 0, pmatch, REG_STARTEND);
>> Should regexec(3) write to the 1st element in pmatch[] because it knows
>> it exists (otherwise the call would be UB because it needs to read it)?
> (Which would run counter to how POSIX defines the API.)
> 
>> Or is passing 0 in nmatch effectively another way of performing
>> REG_NOSUB behavior without actually using the flag?
> Hilariously enough, quoth 4.4BSD-Lite regex(3) again,
> which phrases it exactly like you do:
>   If  REG_NOSUB  was specified in the compilation of the RE, or if nmatch
>   is 0, regexec ignores the pmatch argument (but see below for  the  case
>   where REG_STARTEND is specified).

Touche; it looks like your right.  That sentence is unambiguous.  BTW, is the
reference to some other text about REG_STARTEND the one quoted first
(above)?

Cheers,
Alex

>  Otherwise, pmatch points to an array
>   of nmatch structures of type regmatch_t.  Such a structure has at least
>   the members rm_so and rm_eo, both of type regoff_t (a signed arithmetic
>   type at least as large as an off_t and a ssize_t),  containing  respec‐
>   tively  the offset of the first character of a substring and the offset
>   of the first character after the end of  the  substring.   Offsets  are
>   measured  from  the  beginning of the string argument given to regexec.
>   An empty substring is denoted by equal  offsets,  both  indicating  the
>   character following the empty substring.
> (you know how I'm betting here).

:)

> 
> наб

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5