On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Simon Ruderich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:45:32PM +0000, Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
>>> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
>>> + ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info,
>>> line,
>>> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
>>> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
>>> + else
>>> + ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
>>> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
>>> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
>>> +#else
>>> ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol -
>>> line,
>>> 0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the duplication and
>> unconditionally use the old pcre_exec() call? Something like
>> this:
>>
>> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
>> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
>> + ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info,
>> line,
>> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
>> + else
>> +#endif
>> ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol -
>> line,
>> 0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
>>
>>> if (ret < 0 && ret != PCRE_ERROR_NOMATCH)
>>> die("pcre_exec failed with error code %d", ret);
>>> if (ret > 0) {
>>> @@ -394,7 +420,16 @@ static int pcre1match(struct grep_pat *p, const char
>>> *line, const char *eol,
>>> static void free_pcre1_regexp(struct grep_pat *p)
>>> {
>>> pcre_free(p->pcre1_regexp);
>>> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
>>> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on) {
>>> + pcre_free_study(p->pcre1_extra_info);
>>> + pcre_jit_stack_free(p->pcre1_jit_stack);
>>> + } else {
>>> + pcre_free(p->pcre1_extra_info);
>>> + }
>>> +#else
>>> pcre_free(p->pcre1_extra_info);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Same here. The pcre_free() is the same with and without the
>> ifdef.
>
> Yes I could do that, no reason not to, and as you point out it would
> reduce duplication.
>
> I wrote it like this trying to preserve the indentation with/without
> the macro being true, thinking someone would have an issue with it
> otherwise.
>
> I also thought just now that perhaps if it were changed the code like
> that it would warn under -Wmisleading-indentation, but at least on gcc
> that's not the case, it knows not to warn in the presence of macros.
>
> Unless someone feel strongly otherwise / can think of a good reason
> for why not, I'll change it as you suggest in the next version.
>
> Thanks for the review!
...and if I do change it do others think this is something that
warrants a comment & some whitespace padding? I.e.:
@@ -378,8 +392,17 @@ static int pcre1match(struct grep_pat *p, const
char *line, const char *eol,
if (eflags & REG_NOTBOL)
flags |= PCRE_NOTBOL;
+#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
+ if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
+ ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
+ eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
+ else
+#endif
+ /* PCRE_CONFIG_JIT !p->pcre1_jit_on else branch */
ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol - line,
0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
+
if (ret < 0 && ret != PCRE_ERROR_NOMATCH)
die("pcre_exec failed with error code %d", ret);
if (ret > 0) {
and:
@@ -394,7 +417,16 @@ static int pcre1match(struct grep_pat *p, const
char *line, const char *eol,
static void free_pcre1_regexp(struct grep_pat *p)
{
pcre_free(p->pcre1_regexp);
+
+#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
+ if (p->pcre1_jit_on) {
+ pcre_free_study(p->pcre1_extra_info);
+ pcre_jit_stack_free(p->pcre1_jit_stack);
+ } else
+#endif
+ /* PCRE_CONFIG_JIT !p->pcre1_jit_on else branch */
pcre_free(p->pcre1_extra_info);
+
pcre_free((void *)p->pcre1_tables);
}
#else /* !USE_LIBPCRE1 */
