[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

PSPP-BUG: [bug #55101] Test 406 "testing #! construct" in segmenter.at f

From: Friedrich Beckmann
Subject: PSPP-BUG: [bug #55101] Test 406 "testing #! construct" in segmenter.at fails in pspp 1.2.0 debian build and in master
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:32:42 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12.0.1 Safari/605.1.15


                 Summary: Test 406 "testing #! construct" in segmenter.at
fails in pspp 1.2.0 debian build and in master
                 Project: PSPP
            Submitted by: beckmanf
            Submitted on: Mon 26 Nov 2018 10:32:39 AM UTC
                Category: Syntax Parser
                Severity: 5 - Average
                  Status: Confirmed
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
                 Release: None
                  Effort: 0.00



The debian regression fails for arm64 and kfreebsd-amd64


I could reproduce the problem on debian/testing (amd64) with the current
git master. Test 406 fails which checks the segmenter.

The asseration that fails is here:


The reason for the problem is that type is not initialized and in the problem
case it has the value SEG_NEWLINE (uninitialized) which then triggers the
assertion because
at that point of time the n value is 11. Input has the value „#!
/usr/bin/pspp\ntitle mq“

The segmenter.c calls the segmenter_parse_shbang


which iterates through the 11 characters, does not set type, i.e. type remains
and returns the value 11 because eof is true. I am not sure if this is a
bug or a real bug because I do not understand what the proper behavior of the

segmenter is.

When you call it with eof=true, it states that it will never return with -1.
How do
you figure out if a segment has been identified or not? What is the expected


Am 26.11.2018 um 02:41 schrieb Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>:

There was a build failure on arm64, in one of the tests. I tried to
reproduce it on a Debian arm64 machine, but the same test passed
there.  Very odd.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:00 AM Ben Pfaff <address@hidden> wrote:


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]