This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Whole regex refactoring and current status
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Tim Shen <timshen91 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Rainer Orth <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Whole regex refactoring and current status
- References: <CAPrifDkAoudaXf=Rwu7jGiBa8nWf9HUx-TQUNGe5a0krJ7pUug at mail dot gmail dot com> <yddfvukpklg dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <1f55c618-cefd-40cf-801f-a78767b7da3a at email dot android dot com> <ydd7gfwpcw5 dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <36da751e-c2dc-488b-a03d-98fc53b4d24e at email dot android dot com> <CAPrifDnE5Avuf_EQVBkB5D8+GngAggQ0oNkbVUmUELe4m9ALeA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAPrifD=5siXuEpmw9G-VL8qtWmzx3JSM+jbKZcp26vuuZM3nZQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
Hi,
>There's a typedef in regex_constants.h:
>
>`typedef unsigned int syntax_option_type;`
>
>Which is a little bit naive. It possibly conflicts with size_t under
>i386 when overloading. I'm trying to change it to a bitset. Or is
>there any better solution?
In my humble opinion involving the whole std::bitset container for a syntax option is way overkill. Do you really have to do overloading between size_t and that type? Or maybe you can use a type *smaller* than unsigned int.
Paolo