[compiler-rt] Fix invalid escape sequences in python files

[e-kwsm]

\d, ( and ) are not valid escape sequences; since python 3.12
they give SyntaxWarning, and will raise SyntaxError in future. https://docs.python.org/3.12/whatsnew/3.12.html#other-language-changes

r"(\d)" and "\(\d\)" are equivalent but the former is the shorter.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be
notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write
permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by
name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review
by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate
is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-compiler-rt-sanitizer

Author: Eisuke Kawashima (e-kwsm)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94030.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) compiler-rt/lib/asan/scripts/asan_symbolize.py (+2-2)

diff --git a/compiler-rt/lib/asan/scripts/asan_symbolize.py b/compiler-rt/lib/asan/scripts/asan_symbolize.py
index b08769614aeb1..058a1614b55e6 100755
--- a/compiler-rt/lib/asan/scripts/asan_symbolize.py
+++ b/compiler-rt/lib/asan/scripts/asan_symbolize.py
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ def symbolize(self, addr, binary, offset):
         #   * For C functions atos omits parentheses and argument types.
         #   * For C++ functions the function name (i.e., `foo` above) may contain
         #     templates which may contain parentheses.
-        match = re.match("^(.*) \(in (.*)\) \((.*:\d*)\)$", atos_line)
+        match = re.match(r"^(.*) \(in (.*)\) \((.*:\d*)\)$", atos_line)
         logging.debug("atos_line: %s", atos_line)
         if match:
             function_name = match.group(1)
@@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ def process_line_posix(self, line):
         # names in the regex because it could be an
         # Objective-C or C++ demangled name.
         stack_trace_line_format = (
-            "^( *#([0-9]+) *)(0x[0-9a-f]+) *(?:in *.+)? *\((.*)\+(0x[0-9a-f]+)\)"
+            r"^( *#([0-9]+) *)(0x[0-9a-f]+) *(?:in *.+)? *\((.*)\+(0x[0-9a-f]+)\)"
         )
         match = re.match(stack_trace_line_format, line)
         if not match:

[cjappl]

Will you add a description saying why these are invalid, and why the r" is preferable?

[e-kwsm]

\d, \( and \) are not valid escape sequences; since python 3.12
they give SyntaxWarning, and will raise SyntaxError in future. https://docs.python.org/3.12/whatsnew/3.12.html#other-language-changes

r"\(\d\)" and "\\(\\d\\)" are equivalent but the former is the shorter.

[fmayer]

verified that LHS equals RHS in python 3.11

>>> "^(.*) \(in (.*)\) \((.*:\d*)\)$" == r"^(.*) \(in (.*)\) \((.*:\d*)\)$"
True
>>> "^( *#([0-9]+) *)(0x[0-9a-f]+) *(?:in *.+)? *\((.*)\+(0x[0-9a-f]+)\)" == r"^( *#([0-9]+) *)(0x[0-9a-f]+) *(?:in *.+)? *\((.*)\+(0x[0-9a-f]+)\)"
True
>>> (r'.*?(0x[0-9a-f]+):' + '([ ]*[\[ ][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]\]?)') ==  ( 
KeyboardInterrupt
>>> (r'.*?(0x[0-9a-f]+):' + '([ ]*[\[ ][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]\]?)' * 16) == (r'.*?(0x[0-9a-f]+):' + r'([ ]*[\[ ][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]\]?)' * 16)
True
>>> 

[cjappl]

I'll submit this once tests are green. Thanks for the contribution :)

[github-actions]

@e-kwsm Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!