This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ 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 23:20:51 +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> <CAPrifD=5siXuEpmw9G-VL8qtWmzx3JSM+jbKZcp26vuuZM3nZQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <24b3b4c4-9dda-43cd-a7e8-139be29f315e at email dot android dot com>
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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.
The n3376 standard specified the following constructor:
...
explicit basic_regex(const charT* p, flag_type f = regex_constants::ECMAScript);
basic_regex(const charT* p, size_t len, flag_type f =
regex_constants::ECMAScript);
...
So flag_type shall not be the same as size_t. I don't know if when I
switch flag_type from unsigned int to, say, unsigned short, conflicts
will appear in 16bit archtectures.
--
Tim Shen