This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Refractor Thompson matcher
- From: Tim Shen <timshen91 at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:44:36 +0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Refractor Thompson matcher
- References: <CAPrifDmj7BcdDpcJm==v5MtLHnxHzZYCcH9mdywU20P9oU=EpA at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F4E072 dot 9050706 at oracle dot com> <CAPrifDm0fMu1q9mw6PEbqTTvP-oVgckXaqRs+yLwAYwMi3W_2A at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F5202A dot 4050005 at oracle dot com> <CAPrifD=Kxa-nOcBaqmnntqz0Bhn3+4bCT=hikLeJtTq1HwHmRQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F5502B dot 7010304 at oracle dot com> <CAPrifDnCeu0cNf8oE2_jQKpVCkWkWcxLe4amcvY7Ye5YkEgUBw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F6273D dot 7080102 at oracle dot com> <CAPrifDmQ8Ec48+1C_k8kFRE+VkXg2E73T289ntaq-EzgoQ0-xg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F7F212 dot 1010509 at oracle dot com> <51F7F44C dot 5000401 at oracle dot com> <ece694fe-fa8d-49f3-8cf4-959271b28697 at email dot android dot com>
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> I reverted the commit and tested that mainline is fine again.
Sorry for the accident!
> Just to clarify how we normally handle these issues in v3: *temporarily*, to avoid the linkage issues which broke the bootstrap today, all the non-template functions must be inline, even if large. In the past normally we had the definitions of such functions in *.tcc files, thus explicitly inline, with FIXME comments. I think it makes sense to do this for regex too. In any case, as soon as the design stabilizes all such functions shall be exported by the dynamic library, thus in practice all the definitions will be moved to src/c++11/*.cc files.
I see.
So I include <regex> in different files and then compile them
together, it broke. I've make every non-templated function in this
commit inline. Now it compiles.
Sorry again for this commit.
Should I commit again?
--
Tim Shen