https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2106
--- Comment #11 from Philip Hazel <p...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> --- (In reply to Kyle J. McKay from comment #9) > Bummer dude. I filed enhancement request bug #2131 asking for > support for Unicode Collation Algorithm matching (icu does that). > You can always just mark that "Won't Fix". ;) Will reply to that separately, and, yes, I might. > Which suggests that prefixing the string with \Q and replacing > all internal sequences of \E with \\E\QE might work, but PCRE seems to > handle the \Q...\E sequences differently than Perl so I'm unclear on that. I think Perl processes \Q...\E at "string" stage, before treating the string as a regex, but I'm not at all sure. PCRE2 does it during first stage compile processing, treating everything between \Q and \E as literal, with no nesting and ignoring stray \Es. So I agree your replacement would work, as would \E\\E\Q or \E\\\QE. > Which makes the above all moot anyway. ;) Indeed. > > 1. The regcomp() API does not use JIT. Should it? > > Yes, please. :) Is JIT compilation really that much slower than non-JIT? Zoltan has answered this point, but yes, it is. JIT compilation is a heavyweight optimization that is applied after normal compilation, so the total compilation time is always longer, and substantially so in some cases. > > Should there be a PCRE2-specific REG_JIT (or REG_NOJIT) option? > > I'm inclined to auto JITifiy by default as you want to encourage folks to > adopt PCRE2 True, but I don't really want to encourage them to use the POSIX API, because it lacks a lot of the functionality and the error responses are very crude. And Zoltan has pointed out a very good reason for not JITting by default. General point: I'm doing these current extensions to the POSIX API slightly against my gut feelings because I really don't want to bodge all the native functionality in to regcomp/regexec. I would hope (perhaps vainly) that new code would use the native API. > You also might want to have the pcreposix interface tamp down on any of the > defaults (if PCRE2 hasn't already done that) which allow malicious patterns > to consume excessive CPU. It doesn't do anything, and I am loath to change now because I am sure it will break somebody's pattern. > > Awaiting any feedback on my previous long comment. > > Missives don't just grow on trees you know! My apologies. I realise that I sounded petty there, and I didn't mean to at all. What I meant to say was that I was awaiting feedback and further discussion before doing anything more, not that I was champing at the bit to get on with it. (I have plenty to do, as well as a non-computer-programming life. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
