Commit 3694b4d
committed
Fix incorrect search for "x?" style matches in creviterdissect().
When the number of allowed iterations is limited (either a "?" quantifier
or a bound expression), the last sub-match has to reach to the end of the
target string. The previous coding here first tried the shortest possible
match (one character, usually) and then gave up and back-tracked if that
didn't work, typically leading to failure to match overall, as shown in
bug #11478 from Christoph Berg. The minimum change to fix that would be to
not decrement k before "goto backtrack"; but that would be a pretty stupid
solution, because we'd laboriously try each possible sub-match length
before finally discovering that only ending at the end can work. Instead,
force the sub-match endpoint limit up to the end for even the first
shortest() call if we cannot have any more sub-matches after this one.
Bug introduced in my rewrite that added the iterdissect logic, commit
173e29a. The shortest-first search code
was too closely modeled on the longest-first code, which hasn't got this
issue since it tries a match reaching to the end to start with anyway.
Back-patch to all affected branches.1 parent a564307 commit 3694b4d
3 files changed
+16
-0
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1190 | 1190 | | |
1191 | 1191 | | |
1192 | 1192 | | |
| 1193 | + | |
| 1194 | + | |
| 1195 | + | |
| 1196 | + | |
1193 | 1197 | | |
1194 | 1198 | | |
1195 | 1199 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
188 | 188 | | |
189 | 189 | | |
190 | 190 | | |
| 191 | + | |
| 192 | + | |
| 193 | + | |
| 194 | + | |
| 195 | + | |
| 196 | + | |
| 197 | + | |
| 198 | + | |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
46 | 46 | | |
47 | 47 | | |
48 | 48 | | |
| 49 | + | |
| 50 | + | |
| 51 | + | |
| 52 | + | |
0 commit comments