Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:57:22 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans91@ksu.edu> To: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Cc: Ngie Cooper <ngie@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: regex(3)/grot Message-ID: <CACNAnaF%2B3SqCtLsRR5z5cRL5HykKbV-ZQP7=5edEP45bdYKWtA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaGsdzNx43BwjVbhnzMp6KTeeGp9nbCdq73txfY8KpiKFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACNAnaGsdzNx43BwjVbhnzMp6KTeeGp9nbCdq73txfY8KpiKFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans91@ksu.edu> wrote: > Hello! > > Over the next week or so, I plan to address inconsistencies in regex(3) > handling of invalid bounds/atom constructs [1] between BREs and EREs, and > found grot [2]. This appears to have once upon a time been the vehicle for > regression testing of regex(3), but seems to have been replaced by the > netbsd test suite (see: [3]). > > Does grot still serve a purpose, or can it go away? All of its tests seem > to have been split out into individual tests grouped by functionality in > the netbsd-tests suite [4], which is a model that seems ideal. On top of > that, I'm not smart enough to actually build any of the targets in its > Makefile and I don't feel a compelling urge to make it work on its own. > > Thanks, > > Kyle Evans > > [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166861 > [2] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/lib/libc/regex/grot/ > [3] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/lib/libc/tests/ > regex/Makefile?view=markup > [4] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/contrib/netbsd- > tests/lib/libc/regex/data/ > Further inspection revealed that the netbsd-tests bits are actually just an obviously derived/improved version of grot/, leading me to further believe that grot/ can/should go away.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaF%2B3SqCtLsRR5z5cRL5HykKbV-ZQP7=5edEP45bdYKWtA>