| Message ID | CAG4ZjNn_Y=dXKVQuOUjzMUh_YHcYwLUj80-TNZwXMtu8ZKwK9A@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Tim Shen wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > FAIL: 28_regex/algorithms/regex_match/ecma/char/backref.cc execution test > > > > on AIX. > > Oops, a dumb mistake from fixing a dumb mistake. Thanks David! :) > > Bootstrapped and tested. But apparently not committed yet (at r219139) for some reason? (I saw this too, now stopped right before opening a new PR for this regression.) brgds, H-P
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> But apparently not committed yet (at r219139) for some reason?
Oh, errr... I'm not sure if it needs a review by probably Jonathan?
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Tim Shen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote: > > But apparently not committed yet (at r219139) for some reason? > > Oh, errr... I'm not sure if it needs a review by probably Jonathan? I thought it was an obvious one-character typo, but I'll not pose as the judge on that, if you don't think so yourself. brgds, H-P
On 2 January 2015 at 01:29, Tim Shen wrote:
> Oh, errr... I'm not sure if it needs a review by probably Jonathan?
I think it qualifies as obvious and so doesn't need approval, but
please wait for me to rotate the ChangeLog file, so we start a new
file for 2015. I'm going to do that in the next hour (or sooner, if I
can get a good network connection).
On 2 January 2015 at 16:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 2 January 2015 at 01:29, Tim Shen wrote: >> Oh, errr... I'm not sure if it needs a review by probably Jonathan? > > I think it qualifies as obvious and so doesn't need approval, but > please wait for me to rotate the ChangeLog file, so we start a new > file for 2015. I'm going to do that in the next hour (or sooner, if I > can get a good network connection). That's done now, so please go ahead and commit the fix.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's done now, so please go ahead and commit the fix.
Committed. I obviously used wrong branch (which doesn't include the
actual change) for testing so I missed the testing failure. Sorry
about that. :(
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex_executor.tcc b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex_executor.tcc index 7954d06..a973667 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex_executor.tcc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex_executor.tcc @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION if (!__submatch.matched) break; auto __last = _M_current; - for (auto& __tmp = __submatch.first; + for (auto __tmp = __submatch.first; __last != _M_end && __tmp != __submatch.second; ++__tmp) ++__last;