Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:10:34 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <>
To: "liheng \(P\)" <>
Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <>,  "musl\" <>,  Rich Felker <>,  "Xiangrui \(Euler\)" <>,  Lizefan <>
Subject: Re: regex Back reference matching result not same as glibc and tre.

* liheng:

> But my point is that why pat[] = "(.?).?\\1" to match "aba" in
> extended regular expression mode that success in glibc and failed in
> musl?  Are musl-regex and glibc-regex different?

They are different.  Nowadays, accepting backreferences for extended
regular expressions is probably a bug: it prevents certain strategies
for implementing regular expressions because they are not, in fact,

The glibc implementation is problematic for several reasons.  I cannot
recommend to use it as a reference.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.