Message43254
Logged In: YES
user_id=86307
Gustavo, in my understanding, it doesn't matter if the first part
of MAX_UNTIL is protected because if its call to
SRE_MATCH returns 0, it (the first part of MAX_UNTIL)
simply returns 0 to its caller. If that caller is a backtrack
point (a point which may resume matching even though a call
to SRE_MATCH returned 0), it should have already saved
lastmark, etc. and so should be ready to restore them to its
saved values. If that caller is not a backtrack point, it is
either the original invocation of SRE_MATCH (in which case it
doesn't matter what is in the state since the match has failed)
or it is someplace which is going to return 0 to its caller.
FYI, I have uploaded a couple of more sre bug
reports/patches in the last couple of days; I'd appreciate it if
you look at them.
http://www.python.org/sf/725106
http://www.python.org/sf/725149
In particular, the second patch changes ASSERT_NOT so
that (I hope) it no longer violates the assumptions above.
|
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2007-08-23 15:21:50 | admin | link | issue712900 messages |
2007-08-23 15:21:50 | admin | create | |
|