[debbugs-tracker] bug#22254: closed ([PATCH] sed: do not elide an invalid byte in a substitution RHS)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:18:22 -0800
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#22254: [PATCH] sed: do not elide an invalid byte in a 
substitution RHS
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #22254,
regarding [PATCH] sed: do not elide an invalid byte in a substitution RHS
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
22254: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22254
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] sed: do not elide an invalid byte in a substitution RHS Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:02:24 -0800

Just after pushing the fix for that heap-clobbering bug,
http://debbugs.gnu.org/22127, I noticed there was another minor
problem: sed would silently elide any invalid byte specified in a
substitution replacement string.

Here's a patch that's not quite complete (no NEWS entry, and I haven't
yet tried to determine when it was introduced).

0001-sed-do-not-elide-an-invalid-byte-in-a-substitution-R.patch
Description: Text Data

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#22254: [PATCH] sed: do not elide an invalid byte in a substitution RHS
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:18:22 -0800
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> Just after pushing the fix for that heap-clobbering bug,
> >>> http://debbugs.gnu.org/22127, I noticed there was another minor
> >>> problem: sed would silently elide any invalid byte specified in a
> >>> substitution replacement string.
> >>>
> >>> Here's a patch that's not quite complete (no NEWS entry, and I haven't
> >>> yet tried to determine when it was introduced).
> >>
> >> This one has a checkered past. I keep a decent sampling of old
> >> versions of sed around.
> >> Running one of the two tests that would be affected shows how
> >> treatment of an invalid byte in a multi-byte locale has differed over
> >> the years:
> >>
> >> $ for i in $(env ls -dv /p/p/sed-*); do printf '%-14s: ' $i; echo a
> >> |LC_ALL=ja_JP $i/bin/sed 's/a/b\U\xb2c/'|od -tx1|head -1; done|sed
> >> s/.....//
> >> sed-1.18 : 0000000 62 55 78 62 32 63 0a
> >> sed-2.05 : 0000000 62 55 78 62 32 63 0a
> >> sed-3.01 : 0000000 62 55 78 62 32 63 0a
> >> sed-3.02 : 0000000 62 55 78 62 32 63 0a
> >> sed-4.0a : 0000000 62 00 43 0a
> ...
> >> sed-4.0e : 0000000 62 00 43 0a
> >> sed-4.0.6: 0000000 62 b2 43 0a
> >> sed-4.0.7: 0000000 62 b2 43 0a
> >> sed-4.0.8: 0000000 62 b2 43 0a
> >> sed-4.0.9: 0000000 62 b2 43 0a
> >> sed-4.1  : 0000000 62 00 43 0a
> ...
> >> sed-4.2.2: 0000000 62 00 43 0a
> >>
> >> Now, it does what 4.0.6..4.0.9 did.
> >
> > Here's a complete patch:
>
> Pushed.
>
>
> --- End Message ---