This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Whole regex refactoring and current status
- From: Tim Shen <timshen91 at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle 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, 8 Aug 2013 22:22:53 +0800
- 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>
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Tim Shen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Tim, please address this ASAP, otherwise we have to revert the whole thing.
> I'm trying to reproduce the compilation failures.
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?