GNU bug report logs - #62769
pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking of pcre2_jit_compile()

Previous Next

Package: grep;

Reported by: Carlo Arenas <carenas <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:48:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#62769: closed (pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking
 of pcre2_jit_compile())
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:58:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:57:29 -0700
with message-id <f7d9bad2-aa1a-75c1-3015-e0d09335315a <at> cs.ucla.edu>
and subject line Re: bug#62769: pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking of pcre2_jit_compile()
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #62769,
regarding pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking of pcre2_jit_compile()
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
62769: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62769
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Carlo Arenas <carenas <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-grep <at> gnu.org
Subject: pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking of pcre2_jit_compile()
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:47:08 -0700

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
The original code was done in a way that would be useful during
porting, but that would hinder future work unnecessarily.

Carlo

[0001-pcre-correct-overpessimistic-error-checking-of-pcre2.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Carlo Arenas <carenas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 62769-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62769: pcre: correct overpessimistic error checking of
 pcre2_jit_compile()
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:57:29 -0700

On 4/11/23 23:08, Carlo Arenas wrote:
> Yes. but I would probably prefer voiding the return value to make it explicit.

Thanks for checking. Casting expressions to void is not our style so 
I'll omit that (the comment makes things obvious to the reader anyway). 
So I installed the patch without the cast.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 35 days ago.

Previous Next

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