From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.147]) (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 859331B3725 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742226855; cv=none; b=mXCTuBIfr/uHNVnvOTqmbnylEZ6E+xkOSD7IKqH2CdpuhIa2etZBGsiCGVm7lj9ZYRFxBvFJ3LW3/z9+CQ2aKl0DQFcp7VJGWjzjdhjm1YfHMO10mdZ7WjF479T287k6trSmeM7ueOmJYHglNNJSCiqYTDexDKqjsCbGKnkQEDQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742226855; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U18PVONKkrva6vp/WZ7I0Mupqm64n3xgONEH5Qubmms=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sgqavd/WTZTJTW2e5pu2xwy6TmqQLqpDm/afL+mrk14JmpCb7PuWihIp6b1gDeXDlK/3fHTPcmytK/qNfjQaWI7WOHI/MUF8VdrIIGnm2t1cTfupAzcnXSBazgUOH67gAYQiCnt9BQ1uZuTcolmM3yPQc366i9c78OPyYCqtRas= 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=KX+j3ZTl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=eVxEeBxX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 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="KX+j3ZTl"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="eVxEeBxX" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.phl.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A2F11401C2; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:54:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:54:12 -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=1742226852; x=1742313252; bh=Fk9OOHzrl+ py6WpFpN94N09UIdW485lyBC65xf/YQkQ=; b=KX+j3ZTlJMZStbapODULM7EUAm Ux+K8ZIWE6G8ufq71py4XEX5Ub1S9406NRL5dHzQe0i/NL/6iDQQFmBhpouWuyuO pWUvlBszykEpVtTl4yy3Ri3L8MeGEkHuJsnoNUnWzryTfXU+2AYIlTKgtr5hvCwn qqJw8qSDbt52ZVz/OeHSBHc/K2Opt495VYm4LAORsP7mLuAR/J0DCfGYLZmM74Y1 OgKFl5VuNGWaz+Nuwy/1AtC4lE054vQ7Eh+stgxV6pylqc9lUtYPT4wZ5bIarmmG pWS5V9M7M53asWpPSjdfIqOPyeDmiK5haVwOZzu0BfzcZP5mgfJp0KanWMzA== 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= 1742226852; x=1742313252; bh=Fk9OOHzrl+py6WpFpN94N09UIdW485lyBC6 5xf/YQkQ=; b=eVxEeBxXO7wXm4T3cxtfQjGXOrGFSS7c9/AscV03XKgRM+NLmlq 9P0tUrs4PQ6LDcs+8bhNVnF0GguqcErj4F8s5BzpVkwLFC7echxT07YQ2EoMcB4J CPOMLR+Jp6nRI/eLRtQnOco7DkoYI3fA7QEro14jvogGQVulFfG/wPYbbLfbfE38 WVu7wKeO0Nx2e4KR90M20VmAGrV7vNJu6BSCQZIWJQGxS99XsVJfvYSh6CKXVTG3 vvZ/NBCux+/rXc1kwzX9h8SrHauRX0t8ByN8et0iy0ADFBYeDhS2Qfhwjlg/4SQG vk4PdeCjRaEBcYjtHsC3tWTvAPXFIiv/Pug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddufeelledvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg 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 11:54:10 -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> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:54:09 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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 > [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