Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 04:05:01 +0000
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 166861] bsdgrep(1)/sed(1): bsdgrep -E and sed handle invalid {} constructs strangely
Message-ID: <bug-166861-8-pLCxY0ammm@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-166861-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-166861-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D166861 Kyle Evans <bsdports@kyle-evans.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bsdports@kyle-evans.net --- Comment #2 from Kyle Evans <bsdports@kyle-evans.net> --- (In reply to dubiousjim from comment #1) Summary of work needed at the bottom, feel free to skip ahead and only look back for intermediate results/notes. Some relevant notes: As of GNU grep 2.27, GNU SED 4.3 on Debian, and BSD grep @ r316566-ish: (1) and (2) behavior between the two seem to match (3)=20 FreeBSD: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/{/_/" a_1,2,3}b $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/}/_/" a{1,2,3_b Debian: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/{/_/" # Error, invalid preceding expression # Whoops $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/a{/_/" # Error, unmatched \{ $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/}/_/" a{1,2,3_b We do have a test case for this at lib/libc/regex/grot/tests:205 where { is explicitly meant to be a literal match in both BREs and EREs. We have no ca= se expression } being a literal match. FreeBSD: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed "s/\}/_/" # Error, parentheses not balanced Debian: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed "s/\}/_/" a{1,2,3_b # Ah, also prefer GNU behavior This one, it's worth noting, has no test either. It does have the obvious t= est for the other side, \{ alone, but no \}. (4) FreeBSD: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/{}/_/" a{1,2,3}b Debian: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/{}/_/" # Error, invalid preceding expression # Whoops $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/a{}/_/" # Error, invalid content # Reasonable This one is .... technically correct behavior. Technically, according to re_format(7), the following "}" is *not* a digit, and therefore this is not= a bounds statement. I think this is really not correct, though. Letting {} ta= ke a literal interpretation leaves us too much room for error getting in if a di= git was expected by the pattern-creator, and I would prefer the GNU approach on this matter. We'll probably want to update re_format(7) to be more explicit in this matt= er, as well as add a corresponding test case. (5) FreeBSD: $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed -r "s/)/_/" a{1,2,3}b $ echo "a{1,2,3}b" | sed "s/\)/_/" # Error, parentheses not balanced This is clearly covered in tests:54 (silenced, though) and with slight anger expressed in the context around it. I lean towards taking the GNU/sane appr= oach on this one and making this work as one probably expects nowadays. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Summary of work needed (3) Problem: { in ERE uses literal interpretation Needed: { throw error Needed: Fix test case at tests:205 to separate out BRE and ERE cases and ad= just ERE case to meet expectations Problem: \} in BRE throws an error Needed: \} match literal (4) Problem: {} in ERE uses literal interpretation Needed: {} throw error Needed: Consider re_format(7) update to explicitly note {} as illegal Needed: Test case (5) Problem: ) in ERE should throw error Needed: ) throw error Needed: Adjust test cases (tests:54) I think that sums it up -- I'll take a look at these things in the next wee= k or so. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-166861-8-pLCxY0ammm>