[PATCH] Re: Sigh... Bumping the sed nul fix to 1.1.2.

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Sat Mar 4 22:15:21 UTC 2006


On Saturday 04 March 2006 10:07 am, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:

> About FAIL: sed s//g (exhaustive) I have gone a step further:
>
> old expected is           \nbang\nbang
>
> new expected is           0bang0bang0
>
> correct one would be      0bang0woo0
>
> Now, sed supports zeros but it consider it as \n in substitutions

Did you check what the gnu version of sed does in that situation?

PASS: sed s//g (exhaustive)

The current 'expected' is what gnu does.  Which is why I've got half of an 
extensive rewrite to the entire infrastructure in there, but this rewrite is 
not 1.1.1 material.

Is the current code passing the "sed NUL in command" test?  (How?)

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list