Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

bsdgrep trivial improvement: define REG_NOSPEC to be a no-op if not defined, use REG_NOSPEC instead of magic number
ClosedPublic

Authored by kevans on Apr 18 2017, 2:50 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Aug 19, 2:44 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Aug 17, 2:23 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Aug 16, 1:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Aug 13, 1:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Aug 8, 11:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Aug 7, 4:44 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Aug 7, 4:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jul 27, 5:10 PM
Subscribers
None

Details

Summary

At the moment, glibc's cflags are not up to 0020 in value. Future proof this by using REG_NOSPEC directly and defining it to 0 for a no-op in other implementations where it's not defined.

Clearly we can define REG_NOSPEC differently if we pair bsdgrep with another regex(3) implementation that uses a different name, so this is the safe route.

Test Plan

Ensure no regressions with Kyua test suite

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

I agree this is better than 0020. But maybe we should have GREP_FIXED be disabled if neither REG_NOSPEC or REG_LITERAL are defined?

Do we have positive and negative test cases for grep / fgrep / egrep already?

I agree this is better than 0020. But maybe we should have GREP_FIXED be disabled if neiter REG_NOSPEC or REG_LITERAL are defined?

I considered this, but I've never actually seen an implementation that defined REG_LITERAL -- after reading the commment, I assumed it was a typo since I couldn't find any history of a REG_LITERAL in FreeBSDs regex.h and I hadn't seen an implementation that used it. A quick Google search revealed that I was definitively wrong. =)

Should I use this method of #define REG_LITERAL 0 if not defined and just set cflags |= REG_NOSPEC | REG_LITERAL, or would it be cleaner to have two #ifdef blocks inline in this switch? I personally prefer the former, but if there's a precedent it would be good to follow it.

Do we have positive and negative test cases for grep / fgrep / egrep already?

Heh, well, not really. We don't actually even have a single test that uses fgrep/grep -F. egrep has a primitive test for basic branching functionality/matching escaped characters, but the rest of its inclusion was incidental, having come from the one of the PRs for general matching broken-ness with the -o flag.

We could still use improvement in this area. =)

  • Error out at runtime on GREP_FIXED if literal expressions are not supported in regex(3)

Other cruft snuck in despite a recent merge with -HEAD...

Grrr, arc's behavior with Git is not friendly. Diffs against origin/master, not master

usr.bin/grep/grep.c
709 ↗(On Diff #27576)

This won't work as DEFINED (upper-case) would be treated as a macro. We want #elif defined(), and I'll make the REG_NOSPEC case use defined() as well, for consistency.

usr.bin/grep/grep.c
712 ↗(On Diff #27576)

also we want errx here - there is no errno to report.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.