7253 2006-02-14 11:36:04 -0800 Inline regex produces wrong results vs. creating new RegExp object 2006-10-27 09:49:33 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit JavaScriptCore 417.x Mac OS X 10.4 RESOLVED DUPLICATE 7445 HasReduction, InRadar P2 Normal --- 1 pshah webkit-unassigned ap ddkilzer ian markmalone oldest_to_newest 32485 0 pshah 2006-02-14 11:36:04 -0800 Basically creating a regex like this: var regex = /^([^#<\u2264]+)([#<\u2264])(.*)$/; does not give any results vs. creating a regex like this: var regex = new RegExp("^([^#<\u2264]+)([#<\u2264])(.*)$"); This probably isnt a bug in most cases but see attachment for narrowed down testcase where this is happening - comment out line 10 and uncomment line 9 (and vice versa) to see the bug. FF/IE work fine in both cases. Tested on Safari v2.0.3 (417.8) on OS X v10.4.4 32486 1 6484 pshah 2006-02-14 11:36:37 -0800 Created attachment 6484 Narrowed down testcase 32501 2 ap 2006-02-14 12:28:52 -0800 Confirmed with ToT 32503 3 ap 2006-02-14 12:37:17 -0800 Console log says: KJS: pcre_compile() failed with 'PCRE does not support \L, \l, \N, \U, or \u' 32538 4 ggaren 2006-02-14 17:34:06 -0800 Maks posted a patch about this. Can't seem to find it right now. 32549 5 ap 2006-02-14 21:26:47 -0800 Probably bug 6257 - not sure if this should be marked as a duplicate. 54105 6 ap 2006-08-28 21:50:09 -0700 *** Bug 10611 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 54127 7 ddkilzer 2006-08-29 04:53:51 -0700 Per Bug 10611 Comment #2, this bug is in Radar as: rdar://4694011 Bug 10611 also has its own reduced test case. 49274 8 wac 2006-10-27 08:40:13 -0700 The patch landed for bug 7445 (r17354) makes the reduction for this bug function properly. This should be marked as a duplicate. 49276 9 ddkilzer 2006-10-27 09:40:28 -0700 (In reply to comment #8) > The patch landed for bug 7445 (r17354) makes the reduction for this bug > function properly. This should be marked as a duplicate. It would probably be best to land the reduction (Attachment 6484) as a test before closing this bug. 49277 10 ddkilzer 2006-10-27 09:41:47 -0700 (In reply to comment #9) > It would probably be best to land the reduction (Attachment 6484) as a test > before closing this bug. Especially since the fix for Bug 7445 didn't include a layout test. 49278 11 ddkilzer 2006-10-27 09:49:33 -0700 (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > It would probably be best to land the reduction (Attachment 6484 [edit]) as a test > > before closing this bug. > > Especially since the fix for Bug 7445 didn't include a layout test. Test cases will be forthcoming for Bug 7445 per Bug 7445 Comment #18, so closing this as a duplicate per Comment #8. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7445 *** 6484 2006-02-14 11:36:37 -0800 2006-02-14 11:36:37 -0800 Narrowed down testcase regex.html text/html 504 pshah PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjx0aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlPg0KDQo8c2NyaXB0IGxhbmd1YWdlPSJqYXZh c2NyaXB0Ij4NCg0KdmFyIHBhdHRlcm4gPSAiMjQjTWlkbmlnaHQiOw0KDQovL3ZhciByZWdleCA9 IG5ldyBSZWdFeHAoIl4oW14jPFx1MjI2NF0rKShbIzxcdTIyNjRdKSguKikkIik7CS8vIHRoaXMg RE9FUyB3b3JrIG9uIFNhZmFyaQ0KdmFyIHJlZ2V4ID0gL14oW14jPFx1MjI2NF0rKShbIzxcdTIy NjRdKSguKikkLzsJCQkJCS8vIHRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3Qgd29yayBvbiBTYWZhcmkNCg0KdmFyIGNo b2ljZXMgPSBwYXR0ZXJuLnNwbGl0KCJ8Iik7DQpmb3IgKHZhciBpID0gMDsgaSA8IGNob2ljZXMu bGVuZ3RoOyBpKyspIHsNCglkb2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgiPGxpPiIgKyBjaG9pY2VzW2ldICsgIiAt ICIpOw0KCWRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKHJlZ2V4LmV4ZWMoY2hvaWNlc1tpXSkpOw0KfQ0KDQo8L3Nj cmlwdD4NCg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KDQo8Ym9keT4NCg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K