On 10 April 2014 15:57, David Goulet <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 Apr (11:30:19), Simon Marchi wrote: >> Ok, so there are a lot of problems with this function (sorry :|). Taking >> the regex road is probably to complicated for nothing, so here is a >> version without regexes. >> >> I added many test cases as suggested by Sandeep Chaudhary and Daniel >> Thibault. I tested on both Intel 32 and 64 bits. >> >> Would fix #633 > > Why are you not sure of that? :P
Would fix if merged :P > Can you explain *why* regex was a bad choice here (if the 633 ticket > does not already explain it). I did not say it was a *bad* choice, but when I look at the old and new function, the new one seems less cryptic (without the matches and all). This is debatable. > Thanks! > David _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
