Hugo van der Sanden
Hugo van der Sanden
@demerphq is this PR closable? It looks like the collective unreversion has since been applied by f6387cff9c.
It's probably not profitable to critique perl code generated by fuzzing. If we can reproduce it, the next step is to attempt to reduce it to a minimal test case...
Let me see if I can bisect to find what fixed it: it would be useful to know at least if it was intentional.
> In 5.35.10, if I run either the fuzzed program or the reduction above, the dereference is gone. In the reduction, we get > > > syntax error at 17397.pl...
> I'm not sure what should happen with this.. Options to get more information about possible fallout include: - push it to a smoke-me branch - merge it for a...
I changed the title to that of the commit, which makes more sense, it was confusing me every time I saw it in the list of open PRs.
This is better than the decimals, but I'd find it easier to read if they were just hex constants (as most of the other flags are, even in sv.h). Generally...
This first appeared with f50587e06e for v5.15.8; I guess the reason it says "was first released with perl v5.20.0" is because there was a previous attempt to remove it with...
> You are right, it's added by the update script. I debugged it and the name is created from `ext/Pod-Functions/Functions_pm.PL`. Goodo. > I experimented with the update script and found...
> I can see it contradicting the `Easy things should be easy` motto of Perl. Unfortunately, lawyers tend not to subscribe to that motto. I've made similar requests for $work...