-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 558
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Regression with (?{})(?=...) and pos #14016
Comments
From @cpansproutThe presence of the code block in the second program should make no $ perl5.21.3 -le '$_ =3D "rdvark"; /(?=3D[A-Za-z0-9_])a*?/g; warn pos' That 3 should be 0, too. A bisect points to this: commit 77ebeeb PATCH: [perl #120041] regcomp.c missing parens and broken STCLASS (Sorry, I should have noticed this before the release of 5.20.) Most importantly, I need a workaround. :-) -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @khwilliamsonOn 08/02/2014 12:01 PM, Father Chrysostomos (via RT) wrote:
Not having looked into this at all, but knowing that 5.20.1 is due this |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @khwilliamsonNow fixed by 842a9d2 |
@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
From @khwilliamsonReopening so I can instead mark it as pending release |
@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'resolved' to 'open' |
@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'open' to 'pending release' |
From @cpansproutOn Fri Aug 08 11:52:10 2014, khw wrote:
Thank you. It gets my vote, too. On Sat Aug 02 20:07:50 2014, public@khwilliamson.com wrote:
Yes, that would be okay. However, I would still like to get my module working with 5.20.0 if possible, so I have some questions: $ perl5.21.3 -Mre=debug -e 'my $a = "rdvark"; $a =~ /(?=[A-Za-z0-9_])a*?/g;' (These one-liners are from before the fix.) It seems that the stclass optimisation is behaving differently depending on the presence or absence of an eval. (I find that surprising. I thought the optimisation would just be turned on or off.) What can I add to the pattern to turn off the optimisation altogether? Under what circumstances does this bug occur? (I.e., where does (?=) have to be in the pattern, etc.) Is it only with (?=...) or does it apply to other assertions, too? -- Father Chrysostomos |
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]On Fri Aug 08 11:52:10 2014, khw wrote:
Thank you. It gets my vote, too. On Sat Aug 02 20:07:50 2014, public@khwilliamson.com wrote:
Yes, that would be okay. However, I would still like to get my module working with 5.20.0 if possible, so I have some questions: $ perl5.21.3 -Mre=debug -e 'my $a = "rdvark"; $a =~ /(?=[A-Za-z0-9_])a*?/g;' (These one-liners are from before the fix.) It seems that the stclass optimisation is behaving differently depending on the presence or absence of an eval. (I find that surprising. I thought the optimisation would just be turned on or off.) What can I add to the pattern to turn off the optimisation altogether? Under what circumstances does this bug occur? (I.e., where does (?=) have to be in the pattern, etc.) Is it only with (?=...) or does it apply to other assertions, too? -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @cpansproutOn Sat Aug 09 09:49:38 2014, sprout wrote:
My meagre experimentation suggests that it only occurs with (?=...) and that adding (??{}) to the pattern will disable the bug. So I will use that for now.... -- Father Chrysostomos |
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]On Sat Aug 09 09:49:38 2014, sprout wrote:
My meagre experimentation suggests that it only occurs with (?=...) and that adding (??{}) to the pattern will disable the bug. So I will use that for now.... -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @steve-m-hayOn 9 August 2014 17:49, Father Chrysostomos via RT
+1 from me too, and now cherry-picked into maint-5.20. |
From @khwilliamsonThanks for submitting this ticket The issue should be resolved with the release today of Perl v5.22. If you find that the problem persists, feel free to reopen this ticket -- |
@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'pending release' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#122460 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT122460$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: