Hi Arnold,
Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Has anyone looked at issues with dfa.c? There is a difference in
> how dfa handles x{0} from how regex handles it; dfa, IIRC, treats
> it as x{1}. Gawk checks for this and doesn't use dfa in such a case,
> but it'd be nice if it were fixed.
That'd make a nice optimization.
Can you point to the precise code (or better send a patch)
that we need from gawk's dfa.c?
> There may be other fixes in the gawk dfa.[ch] that should be
> looked at too, but I don't recall what off the top of my head.
>
> There is the general issue that grep dfa and gawk dfa have diverged.
> It'd be nice if they could be brought back together.
Indeed it would.
However, considering these:
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/grep/2.5.4-4
most of the time I have for grep will be focused
on correctness-related issues.
