Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:07:05PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>Is the copy of PCRE within httpd-2.0 a separately maintained fork
>>of PCRE, or is it supposed to be an unmodified copy? (The one in
>>the httpd tree appears to be a few releases out of date.)
>>
>
>It is supposed to be maintained up to date with the source, but has
>no current maintainer. It should not be a fork.
>
>>The reason I ask is that I want to fix a performance problem in PCRE's
>>regexec() function...
>>
>
>Do a vendor import and merge the latest stuff first -- it needs to be
>done anyway for licensing reasons.
>
>....Roy
>
We're upgraded to the latest PCRE now (thanks for Cliff to fixing the
Win32 build).
I checked with the PCRE maintainer and learned that the next release is
several months away. In the meantime, that leaves me with two options
for speeding up ap_regexec():
* Commit a change to the PCRE regexec() function (the same change
that I've submitted for the next release of PCRE) into the Apache
copy of PCRE for now.
* Or change ap_regexec() to bypass regexec() and call the PCRE "native"
regexp exec function directly. (The PCRE regexec() is a thin wrapper
around pcre_exec(), so this shouldn't be difficult.)
Anybody have a strong preference for one of those alternatives vs. the
other?
I like the latter.
--Brian
