From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8852617A2ED for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742226985; cv=none; b=Ygh+7WzTnO2TudAiNB/M2xAd5wnboVyP8zTDL3tVEtTrjbqSQ79C19aL4FcjLNoHscGyIpX31dqz2idKQgRl5ShJzswU1bjVDGraaKruw9wO5gzBEM2YSbTz+vFTYbMxvbqgYtTY9nZ4LRUN31pRKgqPN28KNS7frReC9iJGjWI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742226985; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MadOHQSOSGK2XfsHf5gYqHhpxF0SbPdRNMRu6qpKeys=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hFbl6ryBiTJ1DZyKRUBhZOqKsG97Ur1SbWoQ6T+8xXEJ28K2L4au1iLtSlYBJDYLy+Xe2cJwbZK2+/u4Ut/Z+G7YLevpub260b9YXQVp35h3mch/09S31GsC/egvrUov7LuRZsJIPNRc3YW297MAstfrOm2U6iGOvkM8zRTZQOY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Q08Y+fJc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=DUMb26t5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Q08Y+fJc"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="DUMb26t5" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.phl.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF4C25401CB; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:56:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1742226982; x=1742313382; bh=GeSGpzP7jf qbrVCyqFcymkhkR2JSB2QEd+CS27U1OK4=; b=Q08Y+fJcpOOIhw42tQ+ppDS5MW LLStSyOenAnyR1Zd7GF0SP7gGS7kA4j3OjyG56NQtydz5rL3jFSgkPbk93x4ZrtE GAOrMfMWO3foyquIglvHMcRw8g7h0tYxJAvE/am4XR7hDdEhIE212hU8DQhMh7RB fA29W1WdgN8ofm/iai2cKgDZx/6484hfBZE8dXk3QNvSFSpewWIFH/2qqp8LvB+J KQBkQcDxvOJjA8dHMjBmlFpTNbFyuihwF5k6SDEdvC+T59Fflw2AL5D+rFIKx6xZ 3/YBliceOWTIpd62bFv1FTkxp57qo5Ap5jhJZYl93B7U4gwF7Aa30ZGvaGYQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1742226982; x=1742313382; bh=GeSGpzP7jfqbrVCyqFcymkhkR2JSB2QEd+C S27U1OK4=; b=DUMb26t55Yao/IWQJZGNmOk9hReyB6lxPa6vts5PkaBKl9hpMnn uieJrV2GSz/yS1xaNq/DHckyXxhjRIsHIzAGCV1N5vEurGCt0/Aa8bHSK+14XaEQ 8AhhisMHo/8wM6CtM1hlA9A9yy9ZCMzvR13jr7w7xYErA7tzSYJIF/YymbHBU8RJ 4mDvPU+qY7JYIGIGXeSpw8le81W1exOhKBKvZMix0vMWRqxgCV9v3tJ6kNjqJhJt i/oro1+c/RgDdCXAxUgRmSab7rZXHcVOXWk5DQt9twIcpRtMDQMt9EZUduRy+8At snBbvOX0yRTTwm8UY/JfBHpLTxnm7v12nBA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddufeelledvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffgffkfggtgesthdtofdttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvdetkedtteduveeludekheffudehvdeu udffvdethfeileetgfduheffhfegtdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheprhgrmhhsrgihse hrrghmshgrhihjohhnvghsrdhplhhushdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgv rhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtth hopehgihhtseguihhnfihoohguihgvrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhes phhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:56:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Ramsay Jones Cc: GIT Mailing-list , Patrick Steinhardt , Adam Dinwoodie Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] config.mak.uname: only set NO_REGEX on cygwin for v1.7 In-Reply-To: <33561996-3b7f-4d0e-825f-5b2369d7d010@ramsayjones.plus.com> (Ramsay Jones's message of "Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:24:18 +0000") References: <33561996-3b7f-4d0e-825f-5b2369d7d010@ramsayjones.plus.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:56:20 -0700 Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Ramsay Jones writes: >> After some time (may a year or two), the platform library had been >> updated (with an import from FreeBSD, I believe) and now passed the full >> test-suite. This would be about the time of the v1.7 -> v2.0 transition >> in 2015. I had a patch ready to send, but just didn't get around to >> submitting it to the list. So is it safe for us to just drop the bit that sets NO_REGEX and require Cygwin that is less than 10 years old? As long as people are willing to actively maintain the compatibility wart for older systems there is no strong reason to do so, but at some point it would become diminishing returns even for those who have hardware to develop, build, and test on, when the reason they keep such an old system becomes only to maintain it instead of actively using it, and I am wondering if Cygwin 1.7 has past that point. > I forgot to mention, that one of the reasons that I didn't get around > to submitting this patch then, was because of a '# TODO known breakage > vanished' in test t7815-grep-binary.sh: > ... > The platform regex library is happy to match a NUL byte with the '.' > pattern. (presumably this is also true on FreeBSD?). In this test, the haystack has "binary\0file\0m..." and the needle to be sought is ".fi". The system I have at hand uses glibc 2.40 and it refuses to match NUL with '.', it seems. > I could not decide on the best way to 'fix' this issue. The options > seemed to be: do nothing (it's not hurting anyone), disable the test > on cygwin or simply remove the test. The part "On Cygwin" somewhat puzzled me; aren't folks on various BSD variants seeing the same symptom? Do we want to eventually turn it to test_expect_success? I think the "fix" depends on this single question, and I am not sure if we do. Is the behaviour that '.' matches NUL on some platform and doesn't on some others hurting anybody? I dislike a tool that behaves differently depending on the platform, but not strongly enough in this case somehow. On the same system, GNU grep and sed seem to consider that '.' matches NUL there, i.e. $ grep -a '.fi' a | cat -v -T binary^@file^@m[*]c^@*M-CM-&^@M-CM-0 $ sed -n -e '/.fi/p' a | cat -v -T binary^@file^@m[*]c^@*M-CM-&^@M-CM-0 They ought to be using the same library as Git compiled on this system does, so it is somewhat curious. > [I think I prefer to simply delete the test, since it doesn't seem to > be testing anything useful, as far as I can see.] > > What do you think? > > ATB, > Ramsay Jones