Hi Bill and Pau, I am currently working on adding PCRE to CMake. Chances are very hight that it will work, given the very similar comp()/exec() API calls in both implementations.
I'll let you know about the results soon. Alex On 2011-11-14, at 10:31 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > On 11/14/2011 6:08 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: >> Bill, >> >> I think the current incarnation of regexps in CMake should be kept for >> compatibility reasons. >> > Yes, of course. > >> Adding PCRE is not difficult, just time consuming. The implementation >> I'd do would be an additional abstraction layer: >> - For the current BRE implementation, it would be a 1:1 call match >> - For the PCRE implementation, it would keep match status, count, >> next/previous iterators, etc. >> > So, for this case I would be interested to here from Alex to see if swapping > out the regex will fix the ctest performance issue. It is a nice isolated > place to give PCRE a try. > > -Bill > -- > > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers