Re: [bug-gawk] $0 reassignment corruption in 4.2

[arnold]

Hi.

The mainline code is fixed.  I don't know when I'll get to look
at the similar code in the debugger, but it's much less of show-stopper
if that code isn't correct.

I hope to look at it sometime in the next few days, but Real Life(tm)
comes first.

Arnold

"David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hello guys! :)
>
> Is the commit 064d78b562c9670751c48673c6d1d171aff51a42 in the
> gawk-4.2-stable the final fix for this issue, or can I expect more commits
> to land in that branch? I don't want to make a new package in Fedora before
> this issue is resolved.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
> *Associate Software Engineer*
> *Brno, Czech Republic*
>
> RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
> Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat.
> Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat <http://www.redhat.com/en/about/trusted>.
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Andrew J. Schorr <
> address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 09:05:26AM -0500, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:53:14AM -0500, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> > > > Combined patch attached. Eric -- can you please confirm this fixes
> > your issue?
> > > >
> > > > Arnold -- does this look right to you? I haven't chased down all the
> > nuances
> > > > of what this assign function is doing...
> > >
> > > Note: we may have a similar ordering problem at debug.c:1301.
> >
> > So don't we need the attached patch to match the new ordering in
> > interpret.h?
> > I'm not sure how to test this...
> >
> > > And at interpret.h:373, I'm not sure how Op_field_spec_lhs really works
> > and
> > > what's going on with the field_assign value...
> >
> > Still a mystery to me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andy
> >