Am 09.08.2017 um 00:26 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So I find Dscho's concern quite valid, even though I do believe you >> when you say the code somehow segfaults. I just can not tell >> how/why it would segfault, though---it is possible that regexec() >> implementation is stupid and does not realize that it can return early >> reporting success without looking at the rest of the buffer, but >> somehow I find it unlikely. >> >> Puzzled. >> >>> You get different results? How is that possible? The search string is >>> NUL-terminated in each case, while the point of the test is that the >>> file contents isn't, right? > > Intellectual curiosity tells me we may want to find out why it > fails, but in the meantime, I think replacing the test with "0$" to > force the scanner to find either the end of line or the end of the > buffer may be a good workaround. We do not have to care how many of > random bytes are in front of the last "0" in order to ensure that > the regexec_buf() does not overstep to 4097th byte, while seeing > that regexec() that does not know how long the haystack is has to do > so, no? Our regexec() calls strlen() (see my other reply). Using "0$" looks like the best option to me. René
