Re: A patch for gnu-regex

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 04:53:39PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> > "H . J . Lu" wrote:
> >
> > > > A GNU/Linux distributor is free to build a GDB that regexp from an
> > > > installed glibc. Actually such a distributor is free to do what ever
> > > > they like :-)
> > >
> > > Are you saying as far as gdb is concerned, you have no interests
> > > whatsoever in glibc nor helping glibc developers and GNU/Linux
> > > distributors? If it is true, that is too bad.
> >
> > Let's not get all tense here!  There's a balance to be struck between
> > being self-contained and depending on system stuff, and there's no
> > single rule that applies in all cases.  For instance, GDB includes
> > libiberty, even though many of the functions are available on most
> > systems by default, including Linux, but I don't seem to hear anybody
> > complaining about that bit of redundancy.  (Hmmm, why isn't regex
> > in libiberty anyway??)
> >
> > In the case of GDB on Linux, part of our problem is that we have
> > to support GDB on all versions of Linux, not just the latest
> > kernel and library.  So if there is *any* version of glibc with
> > a problematic regex, say one from 4-5 years ago, we need to think
> > hard about whether we're going to hose people running a Linux that
> 
> We can put some check to see if regex in glibc is in ok. From
> the glibc log in CVS, my simple check seems ok. I can even restrict
> it to glibc 2.1 and above. I don't think it should be any problem.

FYI,

I've put this all on hold until after 5.0.
Pokeing around glibc regex is ``on the move''.  It continues to be
developed and fixed.  One thing that has me wondering is i18n and what
effect that had on regex.

	Andrew