On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Le 29 mai 2013 à 15:22, Duy Nguyen a écrit : > >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Case folding is not done correctly when matching against the [:upper:] >>> character class and uppercased character ranges (e.g. A-Z). >>> Specifically, an uppercase letter fails to match against any of them >>> when case folding is requested because plain characters in the pattern >>> and the whole string and preemptively lowercased to handle the base case >>> fast. >> >> I did a little test with glibc fnmatch and also checked the source >> code. I don't think 'a' matches [:upper:]. So I'm not sure if that's a >> correct behavior or a bug in glibc. The spec is not clear (I think) on >> this. I guess we should just assume that 'a' should match '[:upper:]'? > > I don't know, in my opinion if case folding is enabled we should say [:upper:], [:lower:] and [:alpha:] are equivalent. > > This opinion is shared by GNU Flex [1]: > >> • If your scanner is case-insensitive (the ‘-i’ flag), then ‘[:upper:]’ and ‘[:lower:]’ are equivalent to ‘[:alpha:]’. > > [1] http://flex.sourceforge.net/manual/Patterns.html Then we should do it too because of this precedent, I think. >>> @@ -196,6 +196,11 @@ static int dowild(const uchar *p, const uchar *text, unsigned int flags) >>> } >>> if (t_ch <= p_ch && t_ch >= prev_ch) >>> matched = 1; >>> + else if ((flags & WM_CASEFOLD) && ISLOWER(t_ch)) { >>> + uchar t_ch_upper = toupper(t_ch); >>> + if (t_ch_upper <= p_ch && t_ch_upper >= prev_ch) >>> + matched = 1; >>> + } >> >> Or we could stick with to tolower. Something like this >> >> if ((t_ch <= p_ch && t_ch >= prev_ch) || >> ((flags & WM_CASEFOLD) && >> t_ch <= tolower(p_ch) && t_ch >= tolower(prev_ch))) >> match = 1; >> >> I think it's easier to read if we either downcase all, or upcase all, not both. > > If the range to match against is [A-_], it will become [a-_] which is an empty range, ord('a') > ord('_'). I think it is simpler to reuse toupper() after the fact as I did. > > Anyway maybe I should add a test for that corner case? Yeah I was thinking about such a case, but I saw glibc do it... I guess we just found another bug, at least in compat/fnmatch.c. Yes a test for it would be great, in case I change my mind 2 years from now and decide to turn it the other way ;) > >>> p_ch = 0; /* This makes "prev_ch" get set to 0. */ >>> } else if (p_ch == '[' && p[1] == ':') { >>> const uchar *s; >>> @@ -245,6 +250,8 @@ static int dowild(const uchar *p, const uchar *text, unsigned int flags) >>> } else if (CC_EQ(s,i, "upper")) { >>> if (ISUPPER(t_ch)) >>> matched = 1; >>> + else if ((flags & WM_CASEFOLD) && ISLOWER(t_ch)) >>> + matched = 1; >>> } else if (CC_EQ(s,i, "xdigit")) { >>> if (ISXDIGIT(t_ch)) >>> matched = 1; >> >> If WM_CASEFOLD is set, maybe isalpha(t_ch) is enough then? > > Yes isalpha() is enought but I wanted to keep the two cases separated, I can amend that if you want. Either way is fine. I don't think this code is performance critical. Your call. -- Duy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html