GNU bug report logs - #47264
RFE: pcre2 support

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas <at> gmail.com>, 47264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#47264: [PATCH] pcre: migrate to pcre2
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 16:30:30 -0800

On 11/7/21 11:26, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:
> Mostly a bug by bug translation of the original code to the PCRE2 API.
> but includes a couple of fixes as well that might be worth doing in
> independent patches, if a straight translation is preferable.

Yes, that might be preferable so that if there are problems we can 
bisect better.


> The API changes the sign of some types and therefore some ugly casts
> were needed,

I see one ugly cast from char const * to PCRE2_SPTR8; it seems 
unavoidable unless we go through void * (and I see little point to doing 
that). Were there some other ugly casts that I missed?

> some of the changes are just to make sure all variables
> fit into the newer types better.

Yes, we do want to avoid overflow bugs.

> Includes backward compatibility and could be made to build all the way
> to 10.00, but assumes a recent version ~10.30; the configure rule sets
> a strict minimum of 10.34 as that is required to pass all tests, even
> if the issues are minimal and likely to be real bugs that the old PCRE
> just hide, there is likely more work pending in this area.

pcre2 10.34 is two years old. Seems old enough to me (tho perhaps others 
can chime in).

> -          int search_offset, int options, int *sub)
> +          int search_offset, uint32_t options)

Let's stick with 'int' unless we absolutely need uint32_t. uint32_t is 
ugly and is not required by the C standard and although PCRE2 evidently 
requires it, I'd rather stick to signed types for the usual reasons.

> +          if (lim > INT32_MAX)
> +            return e;
> +          lim *= 2;

This should use UINT32_MAX / 2 instead of INT32_MAX (the two expressions 
have different values on some oddball platforms). Better yet, replace 
the whole thing with "if (INT_MULTIPLY_WRAPV (lim, 2, &lim)) return e;".

> +  unsigned char *re = xnmalloc (4, size + (fix_len_max + 4 - 1) / 4);

We don't need to multiply by 4 any more, right? Because we no longer 
need to do the trick of replacing NUL with \000 in the pattern.

> +      flags |= PCRE2_UTF;
> +#ifdef PCRE2_NEVER_BACKSLASH_C
> +      /* do not match individual code units but only UTF-8  */
> +      flags |= PCRE2_NEVER_BACKSLASH_C;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef PCRE2_MATCH_INVALID_UTF
> +      /* consider invalid UTF-8 as a barrier, instead of error  */
> +      flags |= PCRE2_MATCH_INVALID_UTF;
> +#endif

Which versions of PCRE2 lack these flags? Should we bother to support 
these old versions?

If memory serves grep currently takes care to not pass invalid UTF-8 in 
the buffer or pattern. Does PCRE2_MATCH_INVALID_UTF make this work obsolete?

> +  PCRE2_UCHAR8 ep[128];

How do we know 128 is long enough? Deserves a comment.

> Performance seems equivalent, and it also seems functionally complete.

Very good news. Thanks for working on this.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.