You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
- 07 9月, 2012 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
to deal with the fact that the public headers may be used with pre-c99 compilers, __restrict is used in place of restrict, and defined appropriately for any supported compiler. we also avoid the form [restrict] since older versions of gcc rejected it due to a bug in the original c99 standard, and instead use the form *restrict.
-
- 14 5月, 2012 2 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
these are cruft from the original code which used an explicit string length rather than null termination. i blindly converted all the checks to null terminator checks, without noticing that in several cases, the subsequent switch statement would automatically handle the null byte correctly.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
i don't understand why this has to be conditional on being in BRE mode, but enabling this code unconditionally breaks a huge number of ERE test cases.
-
- 08 5月, 2012 4 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
1. * in BRE is not special at the beginning of the regex or a subexpression. this broke ncurses' build scripts. 2. \\( in BRE is a literal \ followed by a literal (, not a literal \ followed by a subexpression opener. 3. the ^ in \\(^ in BRE is a literal ^ only at the beginning of the entire BRE. POSIX allows treating it as an anchor at the beginning of a subexpression, but TRE's code for checking if it was at the beginning of a subexpression was wrong, and fixing it for the sake of supporting a non-portable usage was too much trouble when just removing this non-portable behavior was much easier. this patch also moved lots of the ugly logic for empty atom checking out of the default/literal case and into new cases for the relevant characters. this should make parsing faster and make the code smaller. if nothing else it's a lot more readable/logical. at some point i'd like to revisit and overhaul lots of this code...
-
- 14 4月, 2012 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
TRE wants to treat + and ? after a +, ?, or * as special; ? means ungreedy and + is reserved for future use. however, this is non-conformant. although redundant, these redundant characters have well-defined (no-op) meaning for POSIX ERE, and are actually _literal_ characters (which TRE is wrongly ignoring) in POSIX BRE mode. the simplest fix is to simply remove the unneeded nonstandard functionality. as a plus, this shaves off a small amount of bloat.
-
- 21 3月, 2012 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
the main practical results of this change are 1. the regex code is no longer subject to LGPL; it's now 2-clause BSD 2. most (all?) popular nonstandard regex extensions are supported I hesitate to call this a "sync" since both the old and new code are heavily modified. in one sense, the old code was "more severely" modified, in that it was actively hostile to non-strictly-conforming expressions. on the other hand, the new code has eliminated the useless translation of the entire regex string to wchar_t prior to compiling, and now only converts multibyte character literals as needed. in the future i may use this modified TRE as a basis for writing the long-planned new regex engine that will avoid multibyte-to-wide character conversion entirely by compiling multibyte bracket expressions specific to UTF-8.
-
- 17 6月, 2011 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
- 12 2月, 2011 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-