fnmatch improvements

Fri Jul 28 19:33:50 GMT 2023

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > 1. cd testdir-fnmatch-posix
> > ./configure
> > grep REPLACE_FNMATCH config.status
> > (Expected: REPLACE_FNMATCH is 0)
>> $ grep REPLACE_FNMATCH config.status
> S["REPLACE_FNMATCH"]="0"
>> > make
> > make check
> > (Expected: No test failures)
>> # TOTAL: 218
> # PASS: 178
> # SKIP: 40
> # XFAIL: 0
> # FAIL: 0
> # XPASS: 0
> # ERROR: 0
>> test-fnmatch-5.sh is SKIPped because we don't support zh_CN.GB18030.
>> > cd ..
> > 2. cd testdir-fnmatch-gnu
> > ./configure
> > grep REPLACE_FNMATCH config.status
> > (Expected: REPLACE_FNMATCH is 1, because of FNM_EXTMATCH)
>> $ grep REPLACE_FNMATCH config.status
> S["REPLACE_FNMATCH"]="1"
>> > make
> > make check
> > (Expected: No test failures)
>> # TOTAL: 218
> # PASS: 178
> # SKIP: 40
> # XFAIL: 0
> # FAIL: 0
> # XPASS: 0
> # ERROR: 0
>> Same SKIP of test-fnmatch-5.sh.
>> Does that look ok?

Yes, that's all OK and as expected. I'll commit the fnmatch.m4 patch today.
When the user asks for an fnmatch() with FNM_EXTMATCH support, they will get
the Gnulib fnmatch(), as it supports these GNU extensions. I'll think about
how to make [=X=] and [.X.] work in this case too...
Thank you for your constructive cooperation!
Bruno