| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
function old new delta
process_files 2096 2107 +11
add_cmd 1142 1132 -10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 11/-10) Total: 1 bytes
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
The source command does not search $PWD, and bash recently fixed itself to
follow this behavior for /bin/sh.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
|
|
function old new delta
process_files 2102 2091 -11
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
function old new delta
process_files 2173 2120 -53
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
function old new delta
process_files 2084 2173 +89
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(needed for uclibc build, btw). Add testcase for it.
|
|
|
|
but more importantly make code more understandable
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix than his, and shrank the code a bit on top of that so the net size is
smaller, and added a test to the test suite for this case. Plus I cleaned up
the #includes and removed unnecessary "const"s while I was there.
|
|
$COMMAND environment variable, instead put full command line (including
command to run) in second argument. Modify $PATH to have test versions of
commands at start of path. (Also more infrastructure for testing as root,
work in progress...)
|
|
1.1.1 issue.
|
|
|
|
sed.tests file. My brain hurts now. (Lots of boggling at sed minutiae and
corner cases and going "why is gnu giving that output". The behavior of N
and n with regard to EOF are only understandable if you read the Open Group
spec, not if you read the sed info page, by the way...)
Some of the existing sed tests are just nuts. For example, sed-next-line is
testing for our behavior (which is wrong), and would fail if run against gnu
sed (which was getting it right. Again, this was a spec-boggling moment,
with much head scratching. I've got to add a debug mode where the stuff
output by the p command is a different color from the stuff output by normal
end of script printing (when not suppressed by -n).)
As for sed-handles-unsatisifed-backrefs: what is this test trying to _do_? I
ran it against gnu sed and got an error message, and this behavior sounds
perfectly reasonable. (It _is_ an unsatisfied backref.) The fact we
currently ignore this case (and treat \1 as an empty string) isn't really
behavior we should have a test depend on for success.
The remaining one is sed-aic-commands, which is long and complicated. I'm
trying to figure out if I should chop this into a number of smaller tests, or
if having one big "does-many-things" test is a good idea.
In any case, the _next_ step is to go through the Open Group standard and
make tests for every case not yet covered. (And there are plenty. There
are few comments in the file already.) Plus I have notes about corner
cases from development that I need to collate and put into here. This file
is maybe the first 1/3 of a truly comprehensive sed test.
Rob
|
