On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> Isn't this arguably a Fedora regression? What did they change in F23 to make
>>> it fail? I note that F23 is still in Beta.
>> Maybe, but it's pretty unfriendly for us to complain about a library
>> issue, if it is one, by failing an Assert(). People with
>> non-assert-enabled builds will just get wrong answers. Yuck.
>>
>> Thinking about how this could happen, I believe that one possibility
>> is that there are two strings A and B and a locale L such that
>> strcoll_l(A, B, L) and memcmp(strxfrm(A, L), strxfrm(B, L)) disagree
>> (that is, the results are of different sign, or one is zero and the
>> other is not).
> I wonder if Glibc bug 18589 is relevant. Bug 18934 says "Note that
> these unittests pass with glibc-2.21 but fail with 2.22 and current
> git due to bug 18589 which points to a broken change in the collate
> algorithm that needs to be reverted first." Hungarian is mentioned.
> Doesn't Fedora 23 include glibc-2.22? Is it possible that that bug
> affects strcoll but not strxfrm?
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18934
>
Yes, it's 2.22:
[vagrant@localhost ~ ]$ rpm -q -a | grep glibc glibc-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 glibc-devel-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64
glibc-common-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 glibc-headers-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64
cheers
andrew
