This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] Support assertions and greedy/ungreedy matching in regex


On 09/12/2013 04:51 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Paolo Carlini <> wrote:
Great. A quick-quick comment: if these are the last two features, why we
can't un-xfail the testcase which we added latety? Also, a grep revealed a
couple more xfails. Can you clarify?
I say `feature` when I think that, what these xfails reveal are too
small to be features, say, regex_search/regex_match flags. Now turns
out "feature" is not a good word for them. I do mean all C++ library
independent part, or pure regex function part, are done. Next days I
will add flags implementation.
Ah, Ok, great. Maybe I simply misunderstood: when you added that testcase a few days ago, I thought that it simply needed one of the missing features. In fact it's about a specific "detail", let's call it like that, one of the simple ones part of the work ahead. Fine with me of course.
Also, much more generally, I would be curious about the remaining work: I
think essentially it boils down to the vagaries for the other non-default
regex dialects? Is it a lot of work?
This patch(
already supports all dialects(ECMAScript, basic, extended, grep,
egrep, awk) specified by standard. Most of the differences between
them are eliminated by _Scanner, aka tokenizer, so it's actually not a
lot of work to even add one more syntax.
Cool. Really, I remember well that patch going in but I thought it was only *part* of the work on the other dialects, *not* all of it.
  But again, I think more
testcases are needed, especially from those experienced regex users.
I'm actually not a big fan of regex(but of NFA ;), or can I borrow
some boost/libc++ testcases without making any licence trouble?
Eh, let me (us) think a bit about that, we don't want to make legal mistakes. With boost should be more straightforward, we already borrowed shared_ptr for example. First, you could send an email to the author of the boost implementation and raise the issue. Of course add me, the other v3 maintainers in CC, speak on behalf of the project not just of yourself as the actual implementor of our code.

Also, I'm thinking, when those xfails are gone, and the small "details" correctly handled, we should have a news entry on the GCC mainpage: will be also useful to attract testers.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]